Grrl Power #1023 – One nation under new administration…
Sydney: “I’m not leaving this country until I learn to curse in Xhosa, Chiktr, Alar, Makhuwa, Changana, Nyanja, Ndau, Sena, Chwabo, and Tswa.” (She already knows how to curse in Portuguese.)
Mozambique’s “non-surrender” was largely due not just to a grievously outmatched military, but a line of two story tall demons marching in flaming columns.
>cough<
I’m not an expert in local Mozambique superstitions, but it’s safe to say that the largest and scariest demons were placed in high visibility positions to freak the defending team the fuck out. A lot of fire blasts, the odd piece of livestock consumed whole when they knew they were being watched. Those sorts of shenanigans. The occasional Alari flyover and Super powers were icing on the cake at that point.
And yes, that much weight should bend the bar slightly… if he was gripping it near the center, like close grip bench or something, but he’s got his hands near the outer knurling grips, like a wide bench, meaning he’s holding the bar about 6″ from the weights. Therefore, I was correct to use the straight line tool to draw the outline of the bar. :)
Can I have a little tangent here? Totally unrelated to the comic or anything, but I recently invested in a new keyboard. I’ve been playing God of War on the PC (that game desperately needs a Teal’c and Rya’c skin mod) and discovered that the old keyboard was having ghosting problems with the game. Walking back and to the side while holding CTRL and R to recall the Leviathan Axe tends to overwhelm the circuit board of most keyboards. Yes, I know you don’t have to hold CTRL to recall the axe, but you have to hold it to throw it, and it’s one less thing to think about if I can just keep it down while I’m ping-ponging the axe off of draugr and whatever.
Anyway, the keyboard I got is a nice gaming one with backlighting and Cherry Brown keycaps… The thing is, I had been using a Microsoft Sidewinder 6X keyboard (largely because you can snap the tenkey off of one side and either leave it off or attach it to the left side of the keyboard where it can function like a tenkey or be assigned macros. I like taking it off so I have more maneuvering room for my mouse. It’s just how I do.) The problem is, the 6x basically uses laptop keys. Not really, but they’re shallow. I’ve been using that keyboard for like… ten years? I wrote both T:E novels on it. It’s safe to say my muscle memory has become quite accustomed to it. Your average mechanical gaming keyboard… the keycaps are smaller with bigger gaps between the keys and you have to depress the keys about 3 times as far to get them to register. Okay, maybe not, but it feels like it. The distance between the top of the keys and the face of the keyboard (like by the arrow keys) feels like stepping off a curb I didn’t realize was there. I’ve had this new keyboard for a week now and it’s really nice, but man, it feels like I’m drunk every time I try and type on it. I could just leave both connected and swap them out I guess. I dunno. I bought the new one specifically to deal with one shortcoming of the old keyboard, and I’ve basically beaten GoW except for Sigrun. Fucking game should be about her. She could beat all the gods and monsters in the game simultaneously. Anyway I’ll give the new keyboard a few more weeks.
(Weirdly, the Sidewinder 4X is anti-ghosting, but doesn’t have the detachable tenkey, otherwise I probably would have gotten one of those.)
Tamer: Enhancer 2 – Progress Update: It’s done!
Seriously. It’s done! 210K words of weapon building, dinosaur fighting, harem satisfying, lumberjacking, moderate diplomacing, bad guy chopping action. Also some humor.
The vote incentive it updated finally! Lorlara is attempting to break office harassment rules.
Patreon includes some increasingly aggressive fashion choices. I’m hoping to add the usual bonus comic page, but I’m behind on the regular comic now, so I’ll have to finish that up later.
Double res version will be posted over at Patreon. Feel free to contribute as much as you like.
SuperheroThey're super, thanks for asking!
Meatspace ComicSeriously these are awesome. Check 'em out!
Not UpdatingNo longer updating or only updates sporadically, but definitely worth reading.
SeriouslySeriously you guys. If you like Grrl Power the check these out.
"Mature"Mature subject matter and occasionally something explicit but usually safe. Can't guarantee the ads are safe though.
Dongs Ahoy!Full frontal and backal. Lots of skin, sex on some or all pages, explicit or otherwise.
Loves administration? Easy there Skitter.
Was that a Worm reference in the wild? Not every day you get one of those.
I could absolutely see Deus with Accord’s powerset.
I am VERY interested to see how Deus handles Mozambique’s public sector corruption problems – https://www.transparency.org/en/countries/mozambique – or for that matter, what he did with Galytn’s same dilemma. A mind reader Super on staff, perhaps?
I guess he will do to the public sector what he did to Galtyn’s king: Kill the corrupt leaders until you run into someone willing to follow your guidance.
That doesn’t really work. You can’t really destroy your way out of corruption, because of the second order effects of violence creating uncertainly, which increases corruption.
You need a core of non corrupt that you can support and expand, while punishing corruption swiftly and reliably so that it underperforms compared to non-corrupt.
Probably the same way he had dealt with Galtyn’s corruption
Right, but how was that? We know he had King Indinge killed. If we take Deus’s statement that (paraphrased) the vast majority of Govt. officials in Galytn were also corrupt – how was that brought under control? Lots of room for creative thinking here.
Forgot the link – https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/comic/grrl-power-389-interview-to-a-kill/
Congratulations, you almost made me burst out laughing next to my sleeping wife. Holy shit, well memed sir.
For anyone wondering, go read Worm right now https://parahumans.wordpress.com real life will wait
I’d almost say he was going to take the Baron Wulfenbach coarse of leadership and his rule comes to “Don’t Make Me Come Over There”.
Well, good old Klaus was able to make it work. Kind of.
On the first glimpse I thought I saw “Well, good old Klaus was able to make it wurst.”
There’s actually an excellent crossover fanfiction featuring Xander as a heterodyne in the DC universe, called A Spark of Genius by MichaelSuave, on fanfiction.net.
I hardly ever see people reference Girl Genius in the wild.
Corsair K70. Nothing over, nothing beside it.
Can also be used as a weapon by itself.
https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/2r98yb/how_the_corsair_vengeance_k70_keyboard_saved_my/
I suppose that’s next to the ninekey.
I guess that this http://www.aliexpress.com/item/32809609977.html would be the next tactical edge up, if you were planning to return to play with such bad sports?
Shiny… I’ll be sending that to some of the keyboard nuts I know, just to watch the ensuing debates on its merits.
Also, the Corsair is pretty but I can’t stand using anything without an ergonomic layout anymore.
“Continent” appropriate? Wow, that must have been loud indeed.
I use a mechanical gaming keyboard. Not for gaming, mind you: Chemo gave me peripheral neuropathy, and I need a really seriously tactile keyboard now to stay on ‘home’ and type reliably, because I don’t have nearly enough feeling in my fingertips for shallow keyboards. The noisy clicking helps me know that I’ve actually succeeded in depressing a key, too.
I went mechanical (Cherry Browns) after I broke two membrane keyboards in the same month.
I might be a *slightly* heavy typist.
Not a gaming KB, but damn it’s nice: I’ve had Model Ms since the Dark Ages, bought a new one from UniComp back in ’15. PS/2 interface, 101-key and noisy as hell, the offspring hated it. But for production work, nothing better. Easy on the fingers, easy to clean, stays put due to its weight — it has a steel plate chassis.
There’s a legend about an office worker back in the mid-80s during an attempted robbery, she just grabbed the Model M, beaned the bloke with it, sat down and continued typing!
And the rodent is PS/2 interface as well. Always used to have wandering (read: cursor suddenly flies FTL to some random spot far away) habit, none of the “cures” worked. It doesn’t happen now, AND the response is faster. I had to adjust the travel speed ‘WAY back to minimise the whiplash :>
I hear that I was on chemo for nearly 7 months but it did shrink the tumor enough that it could be safely removed I’m thinking of switching myself for the same reasons getting tired of throwing a weapon rather than using it lol!
Unless the bar wasn’t terrestrial steel…
Once you get used to the mechanical keyboard, you’re fine. Give it another week or so.
The trick I found for Sigrun was to not use any of your big attacks like hyperion grapple. Wear her down far enough that you can just burst damage her to death.
She has like, all the valkyrie movesets, but her earlier ones are the easier ones to fight, I found. Also less to learn.
I can appreciate not wanting to be in charge but despising how badly the administration system is set up and being run enough to do it anyway. Not enough, you know, to actually change things or something, but I get the emotions.
If you can weed out the rubbish from the Admin teams, pay everyone well enough they don’t need B & C, then make horrible examples of offenders, you’ve got the country running like clockwork.
One useful thing the Poms did in Kenya was — almost literally — “give the wildlife back to the Africans”. They recruited Game Wardens from the Askaris, gave them rifles and SMGs, and told them to arrest anyone with a trap or cutting up a dead animal. They were also told to “defend themselves vigourously” when attacked.
It’s still a battle but, as most poaching is done to cover lack of a legitimate income, but it seems the tide is turning. It would help if the Government could find the gonads to make examples of the middlemen, but doesn’t that apply world-wide?
Deus enjoys the newer Checks and Balances scheme. They write the checks and he keeps the balances. All the money saved by aggressively removing embezzlers is reinvested into the systems, leaving him to be the benevolent tyrant that helps the 90% while he reduces the 10% back into the fold. He is totally for the United Nations, he just plans on being the Uniter.
so a man, backed by literal demons, is uniting the world and ushering in peace, with prosperity contingent upon accepting him as a ruler?
sounds like dave accidentally (deliberately?) wrote an antichrist character.
At least “economic development through superior firepower” is an innovative approach to the matter.
You might want to go read your antichrist prophecies again. Because that’s not it.
Incidentally, Trump actually fits a lot of the prophecies of the antichrist.
wait what? imma go grease here…
“tell me more tell me more tell more!”
https://www.benjaminlcorey.com/could-american-evangelicals-spot-the-antichrist-heres-the-biblical-predictions/
Here’s the article I read.
“Incidentally, Trump actually fits a lot of the prophecies of the antichrist.” – Illy
Not that I’m on Trump’s side, but there are a hell of a lot (pun semi-intentional) of ‘prophecies of the Antichrist’ and a lot of variety within them. Throw enough random gibberish at any target, and some of it will stick. And that’s before we get into claimed ‘prophecies’ that never were anything of the sort, just coincidental similarities highlighted with benefit of hindsight.
yeah, i still remember when people where claiming that bill gates was the anti christ
Hell, I had family claiming I was the antichrist at the last reunion.
Hrm… (suspicious look) That sounds like something the antichrist would say……
I am intrigued by the bar behind Deus’ head in panel 1. I want to see it as a “behind the head” press, but the bar just looks like… a length of rectangular tubing. I have to put in a lot of work to see it as a cylindrical weights bar, the shading is all wrong. Sorry DaveB.
This is how the World ends: Not with a bang, not with a whimper, but with a spreadsheet.
.
.
. . . . Entropy Will Be Maximised
.
.
This might sound bad but…… Is Deus really a bad guy or just a really aggressive good guy. so far it looks like he’s giving everyone in that country better lives. I mean the leaders don’t seem too pleased but from what it’s shown he only throws out that really corrupted leaders.
From what we’ve seen he’s decided that good guys trying and failing to make the world better by refusing to rock the boat to the point that they don’t make things better means that they are failing at being good.
“Obstacles mean you get *creative*, Headmaster. It doesn’t mean you abandon the children you’re supposed to protect. Let the Light win, and if trouble comes of it -” The boy shrugged. “Let Light win again.”
Is that Harry Potter And The Methods Of Rationality?
Yes, Yes it is :D
People assume the world is almost perfect, and just a few minor tweaks will fix all the problems. They don’t want to consider ripping it up by the roots.
The problem is that most people are unwilling to consider changing more than one thing at a time. They consider all but the one piece they’re examining to be fixed, and then concluded that the one piece they’re considering changing has to be the way it is, because of all the interdependencies with the pieces they’ve put beyond consideration.
That’s the basic problem with the evolutionary mindset. It’s incapable of climbing mountains because it gets stuck on hills. You have to be able to imagine from scratch, to ask yourself what the ideal might look like, and plot a path to get there, rather than just looking one step forward at a time, without any consideration of where you might end up.
the world isnt perfect and it cannot be, for the world to be “perfect” you would need everyone to think the same way, to have the same ideals and to have grown in the same environment since as it is said one person’s utopia is another one’s dystopia, divergence of opinion on important matters and the imposiblity to reconcile every view point is the reason why the world is imperfect and unless you are willing to literaly mind control everyone so that they dont have divergent ideas accoplishing such dreams is literaly imposible
what you are describing about “ripping it by the roots” is exactly what every extremist in the planet believes, they have their own idea of how the world should work based on their own believes, they have their own idea of their own utopia and are willing to try and rip the world from the roots to accomplish said objetive, which is why such believes are dangerous and unstable
what deus is doing i, according to his name, he is basically trying to become the god emperor of humanity leading everyone by his superior example, of course the problem being that not everyone will want to follow by his example and there will be those that will fight to the bitter end for that not to happen, and the world is big
You think the world we have now accommodates everyone’s divergent opinions on how it should be? That it doesn’t privilege established power over the majority?
We could have a more democratic world, in which people get to truly rule themselves, and no one else, but the people benefiting from the current order would fight it tooth and nail.
“… in which people get to truly rule themselves …”
Anarchy. =”No ruler”. It works well in mob rule.
The UK is actually a hagiarchy :D The USA is either an aristarchy or pantarchy wannabe, can’t figure which is most accurate; very few nations have a democracy because:
“Democracy implies that the man must take the responsibility for choosing his rulers and representatives, and for the maintenance of his own ‘rights’ against the possible and probable encroachments of the government which he has sanctioned to act for him in public matters. [Ezra Pound, “ABC of Economics,” 1933]” And I bet no-one can find a nation which permits a citizen to “maintain his own rights etc”.
BTW, the various “Supreme Courts” of the USA do not hear or consider all cases, only those they think are important. Which ranking can and does change with time.
what im trying to say is that said world sadly cant exist, and its not just because “rich people bad” but just because there are 7 billion humans, 7 billion points of view, 7 billion dreams, 7 billion objectives
there is a lot of divergence, there will always be someone who suffers, someone who gets the wrong end of the stick, someone that doesnt like the new laws or that is not benefited by them
> the world isnt perfect and it cannot be
[Citation Needed]
Just because we haven’t solved the problem doesn’t mean it cannot be solved.
So long as free will exists, there will always be disagreement, so long as disagreements exist there will always be conflict, so long as conflict exists there will be violence, so long as violence exists there will be war, inequality, etc.
The “problem” that needs to be “solved” in order to bring about a “perfect” world is free will. The “solution” to free will is mind control, ie enslavement. Enslavement is bad, as such an enslaved world would not be perfect.
Somebody is gonna pull the short straw so long as the straw grows to varying lengths, sure it sucks, but it is what it is. Can the world be better? Yes. We can make the gap between those who pulled the short straw and those that pulled the longest straw smaller by ensuring everyone’s needs are met and preventing exploitation (in theory). Can we make the world ideal? No. What I consider an ideal world, and what other people consider an ideal world are quite likely to differ rather drastically (I’m sure some people share my ideal, but certainly not everybody).
Does free will actually exist? If the basic assumption of the scientific method is true, then it cannot.
—
As for making the world perfect, how about we start with all the simple stuff that we have solid evidence for, like universal healthcare, a sensible minimum wage, not treating addictions as crimes, etc…
Once we’ve got all that done, *then* we can talk about where to go next.
Oh, we can absolutely make the world significantly better, that much is indisputable, but perfect is impossible.
As for free will, so long as we have even an illusion of choice then we have to operate under the assumption that it exists for all intents and purposes, because otherwise there is no point to anything, and even if it does not exist that does not change the fact that so long as there are multiple wills, free or otherwise, conflict is an inevitability and any world in which there is conflict cannot be perfect, hence why perfection is impossible.
Oh, I absolutely agree that pretending free will exists is a useful thing to do.
As for better vs perfect – perfect might be an unreachable target, or it might not be. But we know a big pile of things that we aren’t doing that will get us *closer* to perfect. So we should do them. And keep doing things that move us closer to perfect. Even if we know we’ll never get there, we can get damned close.
That is very much a matter of opinion. One of those things people could disagree about.
You could probably convince me of the free will -> disagreement relationship, but you’d have a much harder time with disagreement -> conflict, or conflict -> violence. I think taking the pressure of survival out of these conflicts would reduce their temperature drastically.
Depends on which problems are considered worth solving, or at least prioritising.
Take the common claim that “all People should be free and equal”. There is significant variation between People on countless grounds, many of which are intrinsic on an individual level. If they are ‘free’ to act based on their own priorities and abilities, then they will not end up equal. In order for them to end up equal, those choices have to be constrained (and how to define ‘equal’ is a whole other tangent!). The rhetoric does not measure up to the reality.
There was a rather length set of comments on a prior comment about Deus being a modern colonialist, portraying his “White Man’s Burden” as a benefit to the people he’s de-facto conquering. Which would be very poorly received by most any place that already went through that before.
The obvious question then being, would there have been such a backlash if someone did exactly the same thing but with local ancestry?
Deus, from what we’ve seen of him on-page and his interactions with others, explicitly does not believe in “White Man’s Burden” theory. His approach reads more as “Rich Person’s Burden” – a similar sense of noblesse oblige, but explicitly without reference to the Person’s skin tone, gender, or even species. (Granted, the two have historically been hard to tell apart, largely because of who happened to be the ‘Rich People’ when the theory became practicable.) To claim that he must see it in racial terms, just because of his own skin tone, is arguably itself racist.
“This might sound bad but…… ”
There’s nothing bad-sounding about what you are saying. You are clearly extremely wise and probably very good looking and popular and cool.
“Is Deus really a bad guy or just a really aggressive good guy.”
He is an aggressively good guy, yes. :) Based on every action he’s taken, he’s been quite good.
“so far it looks like he’s giving everyone in that country better lives. ”
Exactly.
“I mean the leaders don’t seem too pleased”
Yes, I’m very sure that murderous tyrants are not pleased when they’re told they can’t keep murdering. :)
And even with the corrupt leaders, if they actually listen to what Deus is offering, they might realize that his methods are even more profitable for THEM than their own corrupt practices are… with the benefit of Deus’s practices NOT being corrupt. Deus is very much someone who likes the ‘cut Lex Luthor a check’ trope before having to resort to harsher methods towards corrupt leaders.
“but from what it’s shown he only throws out that really corrupted leaders.”
Not only that. He even tries to reason with them first and give them an alternative opportunity where they’d benefit far more than they do from perpetratin’ evil.
Whether Deus is bad or not has not become irrelevant. No member of the G7 would put up with those shenanigans.
*has become irrelevant.
Don’t know where that second not came from.
What benefit is there to opposing these shenanigans for the G-7? Feels odd to me to call stability and economic improvement ‘shenanigans’ but lets go with it anyway.
What argument exactly would Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK, or the US have to the benefits that Deus has brought to the region?
The US is going to profit HUGELY from Operation Cha-Ching. And so will the rest of those nations. The amount of stability that Deus has brought to the region, plus economic and manufacturing power, will result in a windfall for those other nations. By the time anyone who DOES have a problem with it can politically maneuver to do something about it, they would find that their own nations find it more profitable and PR-friendly to simply work with Deus and the regions that he has helped.
Also I think at this point in time in the comic, it would have still been the G-8, not the G-7. Russia would still be a member if this takes place before 2014.
Once again, his military actions have been undermining the Super-Power Non-Use Treaties. Yes, Galtyn is a non-signatory, but there are non-signatories to the nuclear NPT, and guess what? It gets enforced, by both economic sanctions and by covert and overt military force.
If he had used purely economic forces to bring Mozambique to heel, he might be able to glide past the G-7 for the reasons you outline, but prefacing it with an alien/demon/supers invasion? Nope, sorry. At this point, I can only assume that this comic takes place in an alternate dimension where there are no real humans, only plot-driven automatons.
(Another example: Mozambique is one of the biggest ‘success’ stories of Islamic State. Do you really think they’re going to be hunky-dory with a Westerner coming in and setting up a bunch of women’s rights organizations? No, they’re going to double-down, the way religious extremists do everywhere. And crackdowns on terrorists often just don’t work the way you want, because they simply take it as proof that their enemy is a Satanic agent, and grow more hard-line.)
“Once again, his military actions have been undermining the Super-Power Non-Use Treaties.”
1) Galytn has not signed any such treaty. You cannot force someone to abide by a contract (and treaties are just that – contracts) that they have not signed. For that matter, Mozambique had ALSO been using supers and was not a signatory until after they lost most of their supers. By the way, before the United States became a signatory to the treaty, they used supers to kill enemy supers as well. Maxima outright stated that was her primary function in Afghanistan and Iraq.
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/comic/grrl-power-150-not-sure-where-max-stencils-her-kill-marks/
(panels 5, 6, 7, and 8)
2) The treaties say NOTHING about demons or aliens or alient tech. Even though, even if it did, the US has not signed onto anything about that either.
“but there are non-signatories to the nuclear NPT, and guess what? It gets enforced, by both economic sanctions”
Galytn seems to be capable of withstanding any possible economic sanctions, and honestly the US probably would WANT to do business with them, rather than sanction them. Not to mention most of Europe would want to.
“and overt military force.”
Give an example. If you’re going to say Iraq, then no, you’re incorrect. They actually DID sign onto th Non-Proliferation Treaty on October 29, 1969.
North Korea also had signed onto it in 1985, although they withdrew from it in 2003. Which meant they were violating the NPT the entire time. Btw, we havent invaded North Korea over the NPT violations.
“If he had used purely economic forces to bring Mozambique to heel, he might be able to glide past the G-7 for the reasons you outline, but prefacing it with an alien/demon/supers invasion?”
Galytn was already at war with all of the nations surrounding it, according to Indinge. It’s just that when Deus got involved, they were no longer on the losing side.
“Mozambique is one of the biggest ‘success’ stories of Islamic State.”
If you know anything about the widespread corruption and failure of Mozambique, this would not say anything good about a ‘success story’ for the Islamic State. Mozambique, by ALL accounts, is a failed state.
“Do you really think they’re going to be hunky-dory with a Westerner coming in and setting up a bunch of women’s rights organizations?”
Guess they’ll have to learn to deal with women having equal rights. Or they can speak to Deus’s complaint compartment of Supers, Demons, and Alari weaponry.
” And crackdowns on terrorists often just don’t work the way you want, because they simply take it as proof that their enemy is a Satanic agent, and grow more hard-line.)”
You’re not exactly putting Deus’s opposition in a particularly good light by admitting they’re all terrorists and completely evil, ultra-religious psychopaths who cannot deal with the concept of a woman having the same legal rights as a man. If anything I think you’re proving my point about Deus being a paragon of humanity who the G-8 nations would NOT want to fight against. What would the Public Relations look like? “Yeah we’re against equal rights and wasn’t to support female enslavement, brutal extermination of anyone who does not follow our religious edicts, etc.” Yes…. that would not go over particularly well. :)
“You cannot force someone to abide by a contract (and treaties are just that – contracts) that they have not signed. ”
Actually, governments do that all the time, to any entity weak enough to push around. Most notably, their own citizens, but smaller countries, too. I mean, not everybody signed the Antarctic treaty, but everybody is forced to abide by it, for instance.
“Actually, governments do that all the time, to any entity weak enough to push around. ”
1) Give me an example of a treaty which they have been able to force a non-signatory to abide by, please?
2) Assuming you can find one, it’s fortunate that Deus isnt weak enough to push around, and has plans in the works of doing business with the US to the tune of $300 billion in contracts (Operation Cha-Ching). And this plan would involve being able to do business directly with the US, not through China, which would be something the US would like as well.
“Most notably, their own citizens,”
What treaties do nations have with their own citizens? That’s not how treaties work.
“I mean, not everybody signed the Antarctic treaty, but everybody is forced to abide by it, for instance.”
This is actually incorrect. Everyone is not forced to abide by it. Only the 54 states currently signed onto it are forced to abide by it. Those 54 states are also protected by the treaty, and reap a LOT of benefits by signing onto it. Which is why they signed onto it in the first place as soon as their nations were in a position to be able to do so.
While not all nations have signed onto the Antarctic Treaty of 1959 (only 54 have so far), any nation that has become powerful enough to try to have a vested interest in Antarctic HAS signed onto it (originally there were only 7 signatories, then 12, etc).
The Antarctic Treaty is a very generalized one btw. It basically has fourteen articles to it.
Article I – Antarctica shall be used for peaceful purposes only
Article II – Freedom of scientific investigation in Antarctica and cooperation towards that end shall continue.
Article III – Scientific observations and results from Antarctica shall be exchanged and made freely available
Article IV – No acts or activities taking place while the present Treaty is in force shall constitute a basis for asserting, supporting, or denying a claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica o create any rights of sovereignty in Antarctica. No new claim, or enlargement of an existing claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica shall be asserted while the present Treaty is in force.
Article V – Nuclear explosions in antarctica are prohibited, as is the disposal of nuclear waste in Antarctica
Article VI – Basically says what land is considered Antarctica (any rea south of 60 degrees south lattitude, including the ice shelves.
Article VII – All areas of Antarctica, including all stations, installations, and equipment within those areas, shall be open at all times to inspection.
Article VIII – Involves juristiction over people currently in Antarctica and how that’s handled.
Article IX – How to meet if they want to add anything to the treaty, including new signatories
Article X – Catchall provision reiterating the previous articles and how this treaty is accepted by the UN charter.
Article XI – How to deal with any disputes between signatories
Article XII – Article saying this treaty can be modified if everyone agrees to modify it.
Article XIII – How is this treaty ratified properly.
Article XIV – This treaty is translated into four languages – English, French, Russian, and Spanish, and all of these different language treaties are equally authentic.
There is nothing in the treaty that says that, if a non-signatory wants to go to Antarctica and do their own thing, they must be stopped by any of the signatories. There is also no protection FOR non-signatories because of this for things that have NOTHING to do with the treaty.
“What treaties do nations have with their own citizens? That’s not how treaties work.”
The US enters into treaties with other countries, then enforces them against its own citizens, who never signed it. You may have noticed that.
You literally listed a bunch of things people can’t do in Antarctica, and then stated that if a non-signatory wants to do their own thing they won’t be stopped.
Fine, pick a corner of Antarctica, set up a colony, and start mining. Plenty of mineral resources there! See how it goes.
“The US enters into treaties with other countries, then enforces them against its own citizens, who never signed it. You may have noticed that.”
Other countries are not individual people. They’re other countries. Treaties are not enforced against citizens, unless they are part of the government. They are enforced against the government itself and agents of that government. Again, that’s how treaties work.
Sometimes there are laws made as well. Statutes and laws are what are enforced upon the citizens, not treaties. And statues and laws are more difficult to create than treaties.
“You literally listed a bunch of things people can’t do in Antarctica, and then stated that if a non-signatory wants to do their own thing they won’t be stopped.”
Right. Because they won’t be. A non-signatory is not held to a treaty that they did not sign into.
“Fine, pick a corner of Antarctica, set up a colony, and start mining. Plenty of mineral resources there! See how it goes.”
There might be a war. Most likely there wouldn’t be. Largely because an individual is unlikely to be able to do that much in Antarctica. There would more likely be governments deciding to not do business with that person. But it would not be a treaty violation. At worst, the government might pass a law which does makes it illegal to do that, if they can get it passed Congress and signed by the President. At best, they might give the nation of that person something in order to ‘convince’ them to pass a law.
But it would have nothing to do directly with a treaty. Seriously. Even once a treaty becomes international law, it can only be enforced on the governments who are part of the treaty. If you want to punish someone else who is not adhering to a treaty that they NEVER SIGNED, you need to instead use economic pressure in other areas NOT RELATED TO THE TREATY WHICH THEY DID NOT SIGN.
That’s why large nations and economic powerhouses are able to push around smaller nations that do not sign onto treaties in the first place.
Have you paid much attention to the Republican party and their messaging lately? It’s not quite that blatant… But it’s pretty close. And yet has significant, though not majority, support.
“Have you paid much attention to the Republican party and their messaging lately? It’s not quite that blatant… But it’s pretty close. ”
It’s not remotely close. The Republican party is not evil, despite having someone like McConnell in it. Then again I also don’t think that the Democrat party is evil, despite having someone like Ilan Omar in it. Both parties are basically the uni-party with very few individual exceptions. Neither party is ‘against equal rights and support female enslavement.’ That’s just partisan propaganda spouted to try to make the other side look out rightly villainous instead of just having different policy views. I respect your opinions Torabi, but please don’t be ridiculous and get into blatant propaganda when most of your posts tend to be very well thought out.
In any case, Mozambique DOES have those problems. For real. And Deus does not. It makes sense from a capitalist and business standpoint to be for equal rights and be against slavery in all forms, even aside from the immorality issues. A lack of equal rights means a lot of ability to engage in business and commerce. It removes from society one half of the population being able to contribute intellectually, and one half of the population no longer would have a profit motive to improve the society further, from a business and technological standpoint. And I’ve already mentioned in past forums how slavery was one of the primary reasons that the South was technologically and economically stunted FAR behind the North primarily because of their reliance on the antiquated and barbaric practice of slavery.
Mozambique has many of these problems today. And the fictional nation of Galytn had many additional problems, if we are going to assume they were originally part of Zaire or the DRC.
Deus’s choosing Galytn of all places was not because of race. Anything done in Africa should not immediately be reduced to just ‘race’ any more than opening out eastern asia to trade and commerce was about race (it wasn’t – again it was about commerce).
It was not because of ethnicity or skin color or nationality (beyond none of the nations involved being important to the G-8 nations). It was about cost, existing lack of infrastructure, a population that WANTED and NEEDED help, geographic placement, and political expediency.
The fact that people are so caught up on Deus being a white man is just showing that they can’t look beyond skin color, either of Deus or of the people he’s helping, which is ironically actually the actual racist thought process. If Deus was T’Challa, this would suddenly not be an issue with most of these people, and that does strike me as being a racist mindset. If Deus was somehow doing this in a majority white nation, and every other variable was the same, then the argument would just as likely be ‘why is Deus only helping white people? It’s probably because he’s racist and does not want to help black people.’
It just ignores the basic premise of what Deus is doing and why. He chose Galytn because it was easier than choosing somewhere else, whether that somewhere else was majority black OR majority white or majority asian or any other racial or ethnic majority. Race simply does not factor into his mindset – effectiveness does.
To be fair, the republican party is the one whitewashing an attempted coup.
A coup in America where they forgot to bring their guns.
I always laugh at this, because it per-supposes you never read the Constitution and ratified amendments.
Hint had the “coup” been successful, a Democrat would have been president. Ask Pander or ANY person with a Doctor of Jurisprudence.
I acknowledge that parties are not monolithic things. They are composed of people, some of whom might be considered good, and some evil, and some in between. I’m sure there are many people who consider themselves Republicans, and may even believe in a set of values that Republicans espouse. But the leadership of the party, the people most prominent on the national stage, are pretty awful. They believe in power at all costs, believe that they should rule the country, regardless of what the american people desire. I think there are very few Republicans that actually believe in any of the values they claim, considering how readily they abandon those values the moment they are inconvenient. They believe that violence is an acceptable response to people holding different values and opinions than themselves.
The Republican party is very much opposed to the Equal Rights Amendment, or anything to address any of the obstacles to equality. Their stance is that men and women are already treated equally, and any ways in which they are not are either desirable, unchangeable, or the fault of women.
I see no way to reconcile an anti-abortion stance with “doesn’t support female enslavement”. No matter how much you believe a human being deserves to live, or that we shouldn’t kill, nothing entitles any human being to the blood or organs of another. A government with the ability to outlaw abortion has the ability to declare human beings to be slaves, and one that does outlaw abortion has functionally declared women to be something that another person might have rights to.
I don’t go looking for evidence of these things, and don’t collect links to prove them, despite how that might be useful in arguments. Because I don’t want to find those things, or really get into arguments about them, and generally go in the opposite direction when I bump into them. But it’s a distressingly common occurrence these days. Even if the vast majority of Republicans aren’t evil, they’re complicit in the evil of the people they vote for, because they’re willing to ignore so much of it out of fear of losing power and dominance. When people start talking about “second amendment solutions” to cultural or electoral losses, they reveal that they only believed in the principles of the country when they were in power.
Okay I’m going to go way into a tangent only because I don’t plan on responding to this any more than this post. I hate talking politics because it’s SO divisive. I am not getting bogged down into an abortion debate beyond this post, or on if Republicans or Democrats are evil and why/why not. Because that latter part is just a dumb argument to have and instantly becomes ad hominem attacks to SOMEONE. Plus I think the majority of people in general are not evil. I have a very Rousseau-ean viewpoint on this I guess.
“I see no way to reconcile an anti-abortion stance with “doesn’t support female enslavement”. ”
Slavery is treating another human being as NOT being a human being, but as property. Not allowing abortion for mere convenience of not giving birth (aside from the one area where this does not fit – when the life of the mother is at risk) means you are trading one person’s convenience for another person’s life.
This is of course assuming that you acknowledge that a baby that has not yet come through the birth canal is still a person. Scientifically speaking, I think it’s reasonable to argue that the period of ‘personhood’ gets earlier and earlier depending on human levels of technology, the era you live in, the nation you live in, and the amount of wealth the parent possesses. Given all this, you should generally err on the side of making the state of ‘personhood’ as early as possible from as objective aa scientific standard as possible, because you can’t make a law based on shifting points in time based on subjective emotional arguments.
First off, just to preface, I’m a woman. Not that that should matter – a man should have the right to make this same argument.
To call laws against abortion ‘female enslavement’ makes very little sense. While it’s a limitation on one person’s freedom (the mother), that mother is not the only person involved, since there’s a second person involved – the child. Again, assuming you believe that a person not yet through the birth canal IS a child. Scientifically speaking I believe it is and I’ll explain why in a little bit. My reasons have nothing to do with religion, since I am not religious. My reasons have nothing to do with patriarchy, because I’m a woman and I’m a pretty self-sufficient one who makes up my own mind (I hope that’s been clear from my past posts).
Because this involves two people, you have to measure which freedom takes precedence. On one side, the mother’s freedom is that of convenience in MOST cases. On the other side, the child’s freedom is that of being allowed to live. Life tends to take precedence over convenience, as Life is one of the primary natural rights of man according to the constitution, along with liberty and the pursuit of happiness (although as the Founding Fathers saw it, Happiness was actually meant to be pursuit of property and ability to make ones own way via property ownership, according to the Federalist Papers and most SCOTUS rulings).
In any case, Life tends to be the paramount right, while convenience is not a natural right of mankind at all.
So if you are going to have to make a comparison of ‘do I remove someone’s freedom to have a convenience’ or ‘do I remove someone’s freedom to be allowed to live.’ the latter would take precedence.
The only time this does not seem to be the case is where the mother’s life is in jeopardy. At that point, it becomes a comparison of one person’s life vs another person’s life. That’s the only point at which you should then start breaking down how fully developed the life is, at which point the mother’s life usually is going to take priority.
Now compare this to slavery.
If you tell one person they cannot own a slave, because that slave is not a PERSON, but is merely property, this is very similar to the arguments made on the pro-abortion side when they don’t believe the baby is a person, or they believe the baby is something that’s alive but…. less than a person. Like an animal. They dehumanize it in order to separate their emotional reaction from what they want to do for convenience-sake. Just like the slaver is trying to dehumanize the person who they treat as a slave, in order to think that what they are doing is fine – after all, the slave is not a human, so they can be treated like chattel goods.
Slavery is wrong. The slave is a human, and has human rights. The right to life, and the right to liberty in particular. They also have a right to own property (if they can earn the money and then purchase property), but that’s still dependent on first being allowed to live and allowed to have liberty. When you say ‘nothing entitles any human being to the blood or organs of another,’ I have two problems with that.
1) there is a question of responsibility for ones actions (and yes, I know this will bring up rape which removes a person’s ability to control their actions, since rape REMOVES a person’s freedom to not get pregnant)
2) there is a comparison to the question of if the slave is entitled to food and sleep, and should not simply be worked to death if you incorrectly do not consider the slave to be a person.
3) We are still coming down to a comparison of rights for two different people – does the right to kill someone take priority over the inconvenience of having to provide sustenance of another person’s body in a way which is natural as part of a human female’s reproductive biology)? One thing is temporary, the other is permanent.
It’s the same with an infant. The infant is a human, and has human rights. And that means having a right to be alive, since that infant did nothing to FORFEIT that human right.
To people who say ‘the infant is not a human being’:
Human beings have different stages in their life cycle from conception to death.
A two-day old infant is in a different stage of their life cycle than a six year old child (when a full personality, according to modern psychology, is formed), and that six year old child is in a different stage of their life cycle than a 25 year old adult (where the personality is fully entrenched, again according to modern psychology). The 25 year old adult is in a different stage of their life cycle than a 65 year old, likewise.
The two day old baby is ironically NOT in a different stage of their life cycle than a baby who is due to be born in two days, if you were to compare the two infants side by side (aside from one being in the womb and the other being outside the womb).
And as medical technology increases, babies are able to survive outside the womb at earlier and earlier points in time. Not to mention if a baby is born in the US premature, they are more likely to survive than a baby born premature in Zimbabwe or another nation with high infant mortality rates – depending on the unmet human health needs in sanitation, medical care, nutrition, and education (both of the parent and the medical staff).
A 21 week old baby in Alabama (Curtis Means) was born and is the current Guiness World Record holder for earliest premature birth. In another part of the world, the baby would likely have died. In both cases, the baby is a human being. Human beings are not determined by geography – they are determined by biology. The standard biology of a baby prematurely born in Zimbabwe is going to be the same as the standard biology of a baby born in Alabama.
Curtis also had a twin sister who did not survive the birth. She died within a day. She was also a human being though.
I’m not saying this to get some sort of emotional response. This is a purely scientific reasoning, as well as a bit of legal reasoning.
The main difference between the rights of the mother and the rights of the child tends to be one of ‘who’s rights take priority.’ And to judge that, a good way to do so (aside from just comparing convenience vs life) is to judge who had a part in causing the scenario in the first place.
With the exception of rape, the mother has at least some say in conception occurring.
The child, on the other hand, had no say in anything whatsoever.
The reason for why pro-life advocates tend to also be okay with the death penalty is because while the prisoner was adjudicated and found to be guilty of a crime which forfeits his or her right to continue to live (usually in a process which is long and arduously come to with many appeals), the child was not guilty of any such crime and did nothing to merit forfeiting their life.
Now as for rape. Rape is horrible. And if there had to be an exception to a law that does not allow abortion, a lot of people would say rape would be such an exception.
And like I said, almost everyone would be unable to dispute that, scientifically and legally speaking, when comparing the LIFE of the mother the LIFE of the child, it’s understandable to put the mother’s life as the priority. This has happened before, like when a pregnant mother needs chemotherapy in order to survive, but if she stalls on it long enough to give birth, the cancer will grow to an extent where the chemo will no longer be as likely to help, or will not help at all. Even though the chemotherapy will kill the child, it’s legally acceptable to let her have chemotherapy.
The problem is that in a pro-life vs pro-abortion debate, rape tends to be used as a thin edge of the wedge issue, because rape accounts for less than 1% of all aborted births. If the pro-life side of the argument was to say ‘Fine, abortion is allowed in the case of rape (or to protect the life of the mother),’ in most cases, the pro-abortion side will not accept this as a compromise, because the main emphasis for a pro-abortion stance is the convenience of the mother to end the life of the child. Whether that reason is because it’s viewed as female enslavement by the child (who has no possible intent to enslave anyone) or because they do not see the child as a person (much like the slaver does not see the slave as a person).
So again, you come back to ‘which takes priority – convenience of one person or life of another person. And when you have to decide this as part of a law, objectively, without relying on emotion, it usually feels like the life of a person takes priority over the convenience of another person.
I’m not a Republican. I’m not a Democrat. I’m a Libertarian. I believe very strongly in the Non-Aggression Principle aspect of liberty. I wish there was a way to minimize the violation of liberty of the mother in abortion, but since doing so not only removes the liberty of the child, but also completely violates the Non Aggression Principle, I don’t see any way around it.
And that’s why I don’t consider the anti-abortion stance of the Republican Party to be ‘supporting female enslavement.’ Even if there are quite a few who use very poorly reasoned arguments about abortion, such as religious reasons (which is fine – I have nothing against religion per se – I just don’t find religion to be a good stance when making a scientific or legal argument).
“Even if the vast majority of Republicans aren’t evil, they’re complicit in the evil of the people they vote for, because they’re willing to ignore so much of it out of fear of losing power and dominance. ”
I don’t think the majority of Republican OR Democrat voters are evil (I have a less kind view of most politicians though on either side, although I don’t think all politicians are evil either – but they’re a lot more aware of the evil that they do than the voters are in what they’re voting for). I just tend to hate political tribalism because I don’t think parties as important as ideals. Parties tend to get in the way of ideals, actually. I also don’t think voters are necessarily complicity in evil of the people they vote for. At best, many are either caught up in propaganda and political tribalism, or don’t put much thought into it in the first place.
I feel bad responding when you don’t wish to continue the conversation, but I guess I’m going to anyway. I’ll be brief:
I think the personhood of a fetus is irrelevant. I find the “violinist” argument sufficiently compelling:
Pregnancy is more than just “inconvenient”, and it’s not arguing in good faith to claim that women choose to have an abortion out of “convenience”. Pregnancy is risky, and even a trouble-free pregnancy is life-altering — it irreversibly changes a woman’s body.
Does abortion fundamentally require killing? Is induced labor abortion? If we could safely transplant a fetus to a willing surrogate, or an artificial womb, would that satisfy all parties? I think it would satisfy pro-choice people, because they’re not obsessed with killing, but with freedom and self-ownership. I am less inclined to believe that abortion opponents would be satisfied, because they seem generally less concerned with the life of the fetus, and more concerned with punishing women.
Abortion opponents frequently try to create a narrative in which the woman is wrong, and apply that narrative blindly to all women seeking an abortion. That is what the language of “convenience” is meant to accomplish. It does not matter whether that is true for any women or none of them — it’s irrelevant to their right to their own body. Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy is wrong in the same way that rape is wrong. Their body is being used against their will for the benefit of another person.
That’s exactly what makes them “complicit”, rather than “responsible”. They choose their own “convenience” over what’s right.
If anyone needs something to wail about, just compare the home addresses of the UN Security Council, and the creators of the NPT.
Once: OK, it’s an accident.
Twice: I’ll agree it’s coincidence.
Three: This is becoming a habit. STOP!
“If you know anything about the widespread corruption and failure of Mozambique, this would not say anything good about a ‘success story’ for the Islamic State. Mozambique, by ALL accounts, is a failed state.”
And that is what qualifies Mozambique as a success story for Islamic State. It is now a breeding ground for ISIS and Taliban warriors. (Is ISIS still talking to the Taliban?)
I think we might have slightly different ideas of the definition of ‘success story.’ :)
Being a breeding ground for ISIS and other terrorist groups seems like a negative and a huge blockage for economic and social progress on the world stage to me.
You and I see “success story” as re-establishing something that looks like a stable government with reasonably honest public service blah blah…
ISIS/Taliban sees “success story” as delivering a radicalisation environment among completely alienated teens and younger adults willing to go die for some mad mullah’s new program of terror.
Technically, totally identical.
“ISIS/Taliban sees “success story” as delivering a radicalisation environment among completely alienated teens and younger adults willing to go die for some mad mullah’s new program of terror.”
Okay, well that doesn’t seem like a success story insofar as having a stable long-standing government with room for economic and social growth and improvement over time, at least. :)
The complaints department is actually the Department of SAD: Supers, Alari & Demons (gotta make acronyminal words actual words :P )
That is a much better department name!
Yes acronyms are of vital importance. Branding matters, my bad. :)
You don’t have to have signed something to undermine what everyone else has signed
SmugD may not have signed it, but he knows damn well what his actions are doing
On what basis do you make that assertion? Do you think history supports your claim? Or is it just your imagination, how you’d like to believe the world works?
Administration, total iron-fisted control… Poe-tay-toe, puh-tah-toe…
the benevolent ruler vs the tyrant.
two face of the same coin that is an inevitability when dealing with the paradigms of single leadership topics.
Deus is like The Ambiguously Gay Duo of Evil Overlords. He’s not out as evil per se, but there is a lot of Evil Adjacent Activity.
The most evil of men enjoy Meetings
Everyone with power seems to be just fine with this white man colonizing Africa, and it’s not sitting well with me.
“… just fine with this white man colonizing Africa …”
I was going for a little trolling, but then I saw your nick and avatar. There are questions in my head I can’t ask.
But you can assist by elucidating what it is that’s disturbing you.
So here’s a good question. Why didn’t he do this in Europe? Why didn’t it be written to happen in Europe? The reason for that is because it’s simply unfathomable for this kind of thing to happen anywhere but Africa because of its history.
If this had been set and say I don’t know Luxembourg would you think it was more or less realistic?
Well, there are plenty of people in the comments already complaining that it’s unrealistic for him to be succeeding in Africa. Then you’ve effectively got people complaining that it’s too realistic that he’s doing it, and wish it was portrayed more negatively, with him ultimately failing.
It really boils down to what people want out of their fiction.
Really good question.
A quick rearview mirror of Europe. Start in about 600BCE, the emergence of Rome. Previous to Rome was the Etruscan Kingdom. (I’m reluctant to call it an Empire, but whatever floats your boat.) “Italy” wasn’t. There was a gaggle of warring but independent states, and this situation obtained over what we call Europe, pretty well to the Black Sea and into Asia (/arssee-a/) Minor.
The ONLY reason the Etruscans, or Romans, or the Greek States (of confusion) did not do a Deus, is because… Communications. Alexander tried, and (during his lifetime) succeeded. Post Alexander? Same ole same ole. The Greek States were struggling to keep a souvlaki together, and mostly established “daughter” (colony) states along the Mediterranean shore. Rome famously made many hundreds of miles of wide roads, but…
From about 400BC to about 1000AD, Europe was inundated with invasions from just about everywhere. Out of the East came Franks, Goths, Vandals… Rome was sacked. And the new States fought each other, because. Not to put too fine a point on it, Europe then was like Africa from about 1200AD to 1850AD.
I would like to describe Africa in more detail, but unfortunately there is a dearth of written records. Africa is not a place where records can be easily preserved. Also very sadly, Africa suffered (?) from having no religious compulsion to record things.
So. The reason Grrl Power cannot be believably set in Europe is because Europe NOW has a distinct lack of warring {states|nations} which can be individually subjugated. We should also note the origins of the non-supernatural technology needed by Deus: it ALL came from Europe with some Semitic underlay, notably the math and numeric digits. Even the concept of “zero” as an arithmetic quantity was gifted to us from the Middle East.
Which means. Deus could NOT be from Earth. He would necessarily be a non-terran super, aka “Supes”. And we can see where this is going with crystal clarity.
There are definitely tensions between countries in eurasia. For instance the current stand off between Ukraine and Russia.
True that. But, go look at the HISTORY of Russia, Ukraine, and (the) Crimea. It’s not pretty.
There’s an old aphorism: “Those who fail to read history are doomed forever to repeat it.” Pander will be along sometime to inspect the built-in pun, so be nice to her.
The Ukraine/Russia thing (I don’t want to get into it) is at the border of Europe.
Once you start saying “Eurasia” then you include China as well as Russia. And then you have 3 major powers in your land-area.
europe is an economic and industrial powehouse, if deus tried to do this in europe first it wouldnt work exactly because the vast mayority of european countries are already industrialized and enjoy the benefits of a vast number of their population being middle class which means that his little trick of improving living conditions to gain the symphaty of the people will not work as well, its easy to improve the lives of a marginalized country with no industrial capacity that just got out of a war and is being controlled by a tyranical warlord, its harder to do the same in a country that has been industrialized for centuries and hasnt been in any military conflict in nearly a century and has a democratic goverment
trying to pull a stunt like this in any other place but africa would be imposible, try europe and you will have the european union plus the united states in your borders in a couple of weeks, try it in asia and china or russia will intervene, and south america has the US directly on top, africa meanwhile is more unprotected
deus is doing this because it advances his plan of world domination, nothing less nothing more
They are here questioning him explicitly because they aren’t okay with it.
Would it be better if he were a black American woman who’s ancestry is lost to the slave days?
no as he would still just be an “outsider/American” in there eyes
I wholeheartedly agree, it should not sit well. There has been too much tainted history and bad blood in Africa for thousands of years, millenia of ootlander slavery; the Egyptians enslaving Nubians, Arabs enslaving just about any African they could catch, French, Belgian, German, Dutch, English, Italian, Spanish, afaik the Chinese sent fleets to Ethiopia for slaves ( and other stuff), probably the Indians ( subcontinent ). It may be that the only people who havent had a go are the Japanese and the MesoAmericans.
So no African is going to sit still for long if some white turd walks in and says that he is in charge now, even if he is improving some things. There is no trust left, Africans know you fatten your livestock before slaughter.
And if anybody wants to say, that was history this is now, I ask you, why do the Irish still hate the Poms so much? History may not exactly repeat but the tune remains the same.
The thing is i don’t think he’s walking in and saying he’s in charge exactly, don’t get me wrong he’s definalty taking control of several things but he seems to be intentionally not trying to be a conquer.
he’s a leader(or at least seems to be the leader) of a space alien refugee country, now the wording he’s using in this comic is intentionally a bit vague, but all he seems to be in charge of for Mozambique is the treasury and infrastructure, which while those positions can hold a lot of power, aren’t the top of the foodchain politically, he mentions being in charge of there military as well but I think the wording more implies that he’s using his nation’s military to support Mozambique’s(and as recent events have shown is basically the equivalent of a single caveman being protected by a modern war battalion)
Now on the subject of that army
Its mostly made out of the aliens
Said aliens have far more advanced tech than anything humans currently have
Add in supers and now alien demons
I don’t think any of the surrounding nations or any nation on the planet think they could take them on and not take HEAVY casualties let alone thinking they could win
That and dues is smart he knows that his citizens aren’t going to stay just in Galytn forever so he’s making moves to make it that their most likely first locations are… accommodating to them (rather than a “hey that the alien from that place that isn’t sharing any of its wealth and fortune” cause humans being human love to hate an outsider they think has wronged them in some way) which is also possibly one of the reasons he made a push to the ocean other than just access to trade, it allows his people to have multiple ways(air and sea) to get to places that don’t have that direct comparison to Galytn (I’m sure most of the modern superpowers would love to have Galytn tourists)
No matter what the “finer details” of his arrangements are with the other nations, when the deal is “I murder whoever I need to murder until you agree to let me do what I want” he is 100% being a conqueror. Anyone he interacts with this way will feel conquered, and will have the sense that they are vassals of his, regardless of if they are allowed (for now) to keep whatever fancy titles they had before.
And your citable evidence is?
You forgot to mention the existence of African Slavers, which were practising their trade at least a century BEFORE European colonial investment. Probably the schools you attended did not bother to casually mention the FACT that (with the exception of Leopold II of Belgium) the colonisation of Africa pretty well ENDED the African slave trade to the Middle East. (The Poms had already ended the Atlantic Slave Trade, MUCH to annoyance of the USA.)
I did not forget, the list was just getting too long.
You might care to note that I said that probably the only peoples to NOT ply the slave trade in Africa were the Japanese and the MesoAmericans, which implies that some Africans preyed on other Africans.
I might also mention that just not calling it slavery (indentured servants, serfs, chattel, whatever) does not mean that it is not slavery. We still have slavery now, a lot of it, JUST NOT IN NAME.
There are huge numbers of Africans still enslaved, forced to do dangerous jobs just to eat, with no hope of escape. Blood diamonds ring a bell? How about Cobalt mining? E-waste in Nigeria? Christ-on-a-stick, the list is feckin endless. They are enslaved in their own country to corporate interests.
YAY, the feckin Poms ended slavery! FECKIN BULLSHIT!
There’s some pretty compelling evidence that (isolated) cases of slavery in the US were still happening into the 1960s. People in rural areas where the tradition was just carried on because no one came to stop it; reminded me a bit of the Japanese soldiers who stayed in hiding after WWII for decades, possibly as long as 60 years.
Not only, but also, and not merely in the USA.
Have a lissen to a song, “16 tons”, this one — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2aqvKY6zLc — is Jeff Beck and ZZ Top. Johnny Cash’s version is a bit more gravelly.
@ Aname – The exploitation of workers is ubiquitous and heavily protected, but is in no way to be confused with slavery. Slaves are not permitted to leave the camp. Yes this looks disingenuous, but it is also true. Having said this, there is a certain nation which claims to be the foundation and protector of freedom but does nothing to earn that title.
The fact remains that the Poms did more with far less than any other State to end slavery. In 1939, only one nation stood up to be counted, and 6 years of struggle bankrupted it. If Japan had not entered the war, there was a strong probability the USA would have supported Hitler’s ambitions. READ YOUR HISTORY.
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
I repeat, calling slavery something else doesnt stop it from being slavery.
Words mean nothing, actions are what define things. I mentioned Cobalt mining before, specifically I was referring to DRC Cobalt mining and the use of children and creuseurs.
Do some reading, there is plenty of information out there about it. The companies involved are CDM and Huayou Cobalt at one end and any company using Lithium batteries at the other.
This is slavery, it is not called slavery but that is what it is, this is some nazi level shit that is happening. I dont care if you dont agree and say I’m wrong, it is what it is and you are wrtong.
I think they’re simply not willing to start a war over it. Plus, the trade benefits of not directly opposing him are huge. Or do you for some reaosn expect governments to not be sneaky weak-willed conniving snotlings?
Also, whenever People think Deus is too much of a white knight he can emphasise how he is personally benefitting from this to prove he is not there to help anyone.As long as Deus can keep people unsure whether he is a Violent Dictator or a White Saviour, he can get the benefits from both.
“Everyone with power seems to be just fine with this white man colonizing Africa,”
Why do you care SO much about his race? If he was black and doing the same exact thing, would you suddenly feel differently about it? If so…. that seems a little racist to me.
Dear god no, he’s actually making everyone’s lives better – handling their economies in a way which actually makes them profitable while not actually taking over the countries so that the lives of the common folk benefit IMMEASURABLY. The only losers at all are the people who are corrupt leaders. And even they can benefit if they just LET HIM DO WHAT HE IS OBVIOUSLY EXTREMELY GOOD AT DOING – making things profitable and advanced with literally no downsides.
“and it’s not sitting well with me.”
Does rampant starvation and poverty sit better with you? I’m very confused about this. In addition to everything else I’ve mentioned, the PEOPLE who live in those regions were even asking…. no BEGGING… him to come in and improve the infrastructure and economies of those areas. But because he’s white, this is not a good thing? Or is it because the people he’s helping are black and they should not be allowed these economic, technological, and social advancements and freedom from corrupt regimes which engage in human rights violations constantly?
I’ve always been very confused about what is ACTUALLY evil about anything Deus has done. His only crime seems to be that he’s a very good administrator and constantly follows through on his promises without any downsides. Constant win-win scenarios every single time. This is… not a bad thing. It sits very well with me because it means children are not going to be forced to be child soldiers, people will not be forced into slavery, men, women, and children will not be tortured and killed and disappeared for having independent thoughts, life expectancy increases, infant mortality decreases, and people who don’t even have running water or food will now experience a first world life scenario which we, in the first world, often take for granted since even the ‘poor’ in a first world nation don’t have to experience anything even approaching actual poverty that the average person in the areas that Deus has helped had to experience.
I say, Pander, old bean. You are either the most brilliant satirist that I have ever read or someone that I wish to have no further interaction with. (I know, ending a sentence with a “with”, terribly gauche of me, my apologies)
While I do like to think I’m a good satirist, Aname, my good chap, my inquisitive fellow, my boisterous bloke, my points and questions do still stand.
What has Deus actually done that’s evil, let alone racist? Perhaps you can explain that by citing some sort of details that I can’t refute? I welcome the argument, because I can’t think of any good ones to show him as a villain, let alone racist.
Okay, it doesn’t matter.
None of that matters,
you could be under the heel of a litteral blood drinking cannibal tyrant and having an overpowering foreign military force march into your country and declare they will make things better, uplift you, and all you have to do is follow their laws, rules, and culture.
well…they will oppose that as well, regardless if it improves their current state of life. Because in their eyes they have no reason to view you as anything but “the evil empire come to invade, colonize, and exploit us with false promises who wish to destroy who we are deep down”.
-which there is a great deal of historical precedent to support this conclusion.
so yes, those resistance forces, rebels, and what not will turn on your empire the second after the tyrant is outed and you stick around because to the people you are now the foreign invader trying to take over their lands and destroy their cultures.
doesn’t matter what your intentions are…hell you can whole heartedly believe you are doing the right thing, but one bad solider, one missionary, one insult, and rumors of those spread like wild fire to reflect the entire occupying force and bam, suddenly the was on your side, happy to no longer serve that dictator, are now joining the terrorists against you.
No one wants to be saved by the “outsider” they want the power to save themselves.
So when you march into a less powerful nation, especially one significantly less powerful, you better be prepared to conquer or destroy *and likely some combination of the two* because your olive branch is sitting on the end of a gun and all anyone will see is the gun pointing at them.
“you could be under the heel of a literal blood drinking cannibal tyrant and having an overpowering foreign military force march into your country and declare they will make things better, uplift you, and all you have to do is follow their laws, rules, and culture.”
Deus did not do this though. Deus did not do what you’re describing at all… except that they WERE under the heel of murderous tyrants.
He wasnt telling them to follow his rules, laws, and culture. He was asked…. nay… begged…. to come into the region by the people living there. He was going to find a way to cut a path to the ocean, so it’s just as well that the path he carved was one where the people WANTED him there.
He doesn’t care much about the politics. He cares about the economics and how that affects the people. And we can be cynical about it and say he only cares on how it affects the people because he ties his contracts to the people being treated well and having economic boons in order for his company to have economic boons. Heck if he could just BUY the land, he would have done that.
“well…they will oppose that as well, regardless if it improves their current state of life. Because in their eyes they have no reason to view you as anything but “the evil empire come to invade, colonize, and exploit us with false promises who wish to destroy who we are deep down”.”
Except Deus’s history shows that he CONSISTENTLY meets his promises with proven results. Mozambique doesn’t even have the excuse of Indinge not believing that Deus is capable of what he promises. They SEE that Deus is capable of doing what he promises, because he had 10 years to turn Galytn from a hellhole into an oasis of peace and economic and social prosperity, and did so. WITH the people, not just OVER the people.
“so yes, those resistance forces, rebels, and what not will turn on your empire the second after the tyrant is outed”
That’s actually what makes what Deus is doing so brilliant. He is not tying it to just HIM. He is letting the people of the regions he’s entering improve their OWN lives. So even after he’s gone, they are going to possess the tools to keep improving the area. Not to mention his company will likely be around a lot longer than Deus’s own lifetime.
Also, frankly, what are these supposed rebels rebelling AGAINST? Prosperity? Low infant mortality? Higher lifespans? Clean water? Food? Education? Seems like the majority of the population would see these people not as ‘rebels’ – but as what they would actually be. Terrorists.
“No one wants to be saved by the “outsider” they want the power to save themselves.”
1) I hate to invoke Godwin’s law, but I’m pretty sure that when the jews were being exteriminated in Auschwitz, they were not going to be against an outsider coming in to save them from systematic extermination.
2) A drowning person is unlikely to tell a lifeguard who is trying to save them, ‘No! I want to do this on my own!’ A person in a burning building is not going to fight against the firefighter trying to rescue them because they want to put out the fire on their own.
3) The above two statements don’t even mention that… Deus IS GIVING THEM THE POWER TO SAVE THEMSELVES. He is not giving charity. He’s outright stated multiple times that he was making an investment, not charity. He is trying to make sure they form the backbone of a solid middle class because that IS the way for a people to help themselves and not be forever dependent on outsiders. Deus’s entire business model is dependent on them getting to a point where they can save themselves. Because if they save themselves, they will be profitable on their own. And Deus’s company will still get a portion of the GDP. The higher the GDP, the more profit Deus’ company gets. Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. :)
It’s because people don’t want this to be the right answer. They want Deus, and people like him, to ultimately be wrong and fail. They don’t want to have to choose between success and morality. They want the right answer to be something else. What, exactly, is hard to say. Presumably something more democratic, less dependent on a single person making decisions.
People want to feel like they’re in charge of their own lives, that they make their own decisions, despite that not really being true most of the time. People are a product of their environment, and they make their decisions based on their circumstances and the information available to them. Thus, why so much social conflict revolves around controlling information, controlling norms and narratives.
Deus is ultimately controlling people. He’s reshaping their society, for their benefit. How people will view him will depend on just how terrible their lives are, and how obvious it is that he’s in control. If they’re suffering, then he’s a savior. If they can maintain the illusion that they’re not just puppets on strings, then they won’t resent his involvement. And that’s ultimately his strategy, to lead from behind the curtain, to make the people think they’re equal partners, and he’s just a businessman, all while he manipulates everything. If he was controlling directly, people would get angry and fight him.
the problem is there is no such thing as a “right answer” the belief that Deus or anyone could ever have the
“right answer” is a sickness
So you’re saying all answers are wrong? And equally so? That no answer is better than any other, so we should just stop trying?
I really enjoy your posts, Torabi. :)
“It’s because people don’t want this to be the right answer. They want Deus, and people like him, to ultimately be wrong and fail. ”
I agree with you completely. I just don’t understand the reasoning behind WHY they don’t want this to be the right answer. By all logical standards, everything Deus has done has been, for lack of a better term, good. Even if he has done it for a mixture of virtue AND vice (ie, greed). The people he’s helping out of poverty do not care that he’s also profiting as a result. If anything, his business arrangement practically forces him to make sure THEY do well so he can do well. This seems to be an inherently good thing, as opposed to doing what past ACTUAL colonizers have done, which is to come in, exploit the land at the native people’s EXPENSE, then drain them of their resources while only enriching themselves in the process.
Deus hasnt done ANY of that. He brought in resources, rather than drained them. He has not exploited anyone – he has given them jobs, skills, education, and safety. Not to mention hope where they had none before. He enriches himself… but he ALSO enriches them as well. Deus is literally doing the ‘rising tide raises all boats’ trope, in a very real, very measurable way.
“They don’t want to have to choose between success and morality.”
I agree… but what has Deus done that’s actually immoral even? At least to the people of Galytn? Or even to the people of Mozambique who lived in that region (who begged for him to come into the area in the first place, which helped him decide where to carve a path to the ocean). He is legitimately making their lives better, at their own request. The only ones who were against it were the elite and corrupt officials, who were the ones ACTUALLY being immoral.
I feel that the only reason Deus is seen as a villain is ARCHON is presented as heroes, despite Deus not actually being villainous, and despite ARCHON not actually being consistently heroic. Sure, they’re USUALLY heroic, but with the exception of Sydney, there’s a lot of examples where they do NOT act heroic. Maybe not villainous, but not heroic (Maxima’s treatment of Krona, recklessness by the bridge, consent issues with Dabbler, etc.)
What confuses me even more is when those same people seem to like someone like Vehemence, who HAS acted outrightly villainous in the past, but they desperately want him to have a total heel turn. The rationale just doesnt make sense to me.
“People want to feel like they’re in charge of their own lives, that they make their own decisions, despite that not really being true most of the time.”
I agree that most people are not in charge of their own lives ‘most’ of the time. But if one thing helps a person get more control over their own lives, it’s stuff like having skills, the right to free speech, a secure middle class in a society, and education – all things that Deus is providing the people of Galytn up front. It just feels extremely ungrateful to not acknowledge that he’s done a lot of good things for these people, largely stated by people who probably have not had a single day of actual non-first-world-nation strife in their lives.
“Deus is ultimately controlling people. ”
I would argue he’s freeing people to lead their own lives, but providing them with a guide to how to lead their own lives in the most advantageous possible way. The only people he’s ever actually taken a hard line with are people who are genuinely corrupt and evil people, like Indinge and the Mozambique leadership, and even with them, he always tries rational talking and negotiation first, and as soon as they no longer can engage in brutality, he’s VERY quick to return to rational talking and negotiation, in whatever way will result in a win-win situation instead of a win-lose situation. Which is weird because he doesnt HAVE to do things to make both sides win after he’s already thoroughly been shown to be the victor. There’s a definite morality behind what he’s doing, despite how he couches it in the aura of greed.
“He’s reshaping their society, for their benefit. How people will view him will depend on just how terrible their lives are, and how obvious it is that he’s in control. ”
I agree with this.
” If they’re suffering, then he’s a savior. ”
Correct. And he goes out of his way to look for people who ARE suffering in order to save them. Those who are suffering do not mind this – they are happy that he’s coming to rescue them. Those who see some ulterior motive would likely be less skeptical if they were the ones suffering in the first place.
” If they can maintain the illusion that they’re not just puppets on strings, then they won’t resent his involvement.”
The funny thing is I don’t think they are puppets on strings. I don’t think that Deus’s followers have strings – they are following him completely willingly. No strings needed. They don’t resent his involvement because they’ve experienced actual evil, and so they can tell the difference between actual evil and someone helping them, even if his helping them is not altruistic, and is based on helping himself as well. One of the backstones of capitalism is the idea of using a person’s greed to force them to be good to other people if they want to maximize their own greed. The best way to create wealth instead of shifting it around is to create something the other side is willing to pay for. That way, both sides win and wealth is created where none existed before.
” And that’s ultimately his strategy, to lead from behind the curtain, ”
I agree with this part mostly. He does prefer to not be the one in the POLITICAL spotlight, even though he likes administrating.
” to make the people think they’re equal partners”
While they’re not equal partners, they are partners. Which is better than being servants, slaves, and cannon fodder. Which is what they were before with others. We’ve seen many times that Deus not only respects those who follow him, he goes out of his way to endear himself to them so they are willingly loyal to him. He sees the benefit of people being willingly loyal instead of forced into it
Chunky McSalsa did not understand this concept when he forced Concretia to follow him. Chunky McSalsa was a villain
Deus does understand this concept when he pays Cthillia to do jobs for him, or when he gives Heavenly Sword a perk of a magic sword just because he wants to show how he treats his business partners compared to how Sciona treats her partners like Wyrmil. Deus is not a villain. :)
“and he’s just a businessman, all while he manipulates everything”
That is part of being a good businessman, after all.
“If he was controlling directly, people would get angry and fight him.”
Or at the very least, it puts more of a target on his back, even if people are not angry with him. They might just want to destroy what he’s created because THEY might be the actual evil people in the story.
The means matters as much as the ends. It’s not that people dislike what Deus has accomplished, they dislike that someone like him is the one to do it. It’s a rejection of the “Great Man Theory”, that most people just perpetuate the status quo, until some exceptional individual comes along and disrupts it. Or, that they want to believe someone more humble and selfless would be the kind of person to change the world. Greed as a virtue is what offends people, particularly since most of them have lived their whole lives seeing the rich and the poor subject to a very different set of rules. This is probably part of why people can identify more readily with Vehemence than Deus.
If you know a person’s innermost desires, and can predict how a person will behave given certain external inputs, then you can control them. If you can decide what they will do, then engineer circumstances such that they ‘freely’ choose to do what you’ve already decided, then you control them. It doesn’t require actual mind-control or physical force.
Deus wants to own and control… everything. The universe. He may make it a better place, but nobody else’s will would be represented. It wouldn’t be a collaborative effort. He treats other people as puppets, even if he treats them nicely.
“The means matters as much as the ends.”
I completely agree with this sentence.
“It’s not that people dislike what Deus has accomplished, they dislike that someone like him is the one to do it.”
That’s where I get lost. Because Deus isnt ‘the means’ – he’s a person. His ACTIONS are the means. And his actions could be done done by him whether he was black, white, asian, pacific islander, aborigine, native american, middle eastern, hispanic, etc. When people point to his skin color and say that, because of that, they don’t like what he’s doing, it just makes me think the reason they’re giving is inherently racist itself.
Case in point, I won’t give a ton of details about myself, but I am mixed race (neither of which is white, but I’m definitely a minority on both sides, both in the world and in the US), female, and jewish. I’m doing well in the ‘intersectional olympics’ so the joke goes. If I was able to do what Deus is doing, it would suddenly be impossible for people to claim my reasoning as ‘White Man’s Burden’ even if I did everything exactly the same, as I’m neither white nor a man. Just a fan of that man among men, that paragon of humanity, that pinnacle of the win-win scenario, that savior of the downtrodden, you know who I’m talkin about – I’m talkin about Deus. All praise Deus, amen.
“It’s a rejection of the “Great Man Theory””
Your explanation makes a lot of sense. People see someone who is doing great things and they might not think ‘wow, that person’s doing great things’ if they’re more focused on how they are NOT doing great things in comparison. Which can lead to envy.
“Or, that they want to believe someone more humble and selfless would be the kind of person to change the world. ”
Again you make another excellent point Torabi. I just think those people are being unreasonable, since ‘great people’ tend to not be humble people, even if they wind up being good people, or even virtuous people (which I admittedly do consider Deus to be from his actions thus far).
“Greed as a virtue is what offends people, particularly since most of them have lived their whole lives seeing the rich and the poor subject to a very different set of rules. This is probably part of why people can identify more readily with Vehemence than Deus.”
I honestly feel like more people should have a problem with violence than greed. While both can be used for good (or evil), greed has a better track record in the 20th and 21st century when being used for good (even if it’s also used for evil, largely because of how capitalism has had a net major economic, social, and technological benefit for the world). Whereas with violence, even when used for good, it’s REALLY hard to get under control long enough to see the benefits of that good for long.
I just find a society focused on violence to be a lot more barbaric than a society built on greed. I think the Klingons are far worse than the Ferengi, even if both are not ideal societies, and the latter actually has a chance of actually improving itself (after the stuff with Quark’s mother), while the former seems doomed to failure (there’s only so much that Worf can do).
“If you know a person’s innermost desires, and can predict how a person will behave given certain external inputs, then you can control them.”
True. Understanding someone else’s psychology is a good way to get them to do what you want. I don’t consider that evil though. That’s just what ANYONE can do if they’re observant and persuasive. It’s basic in marketing, politics, law, and just social interactions in general.
Although I try not to base a lot on the Strong Female Protagonist webcomic. The main character is just a truly evil person or at least becomes one after what she does to Max, who was not remotely evil.
“Deus wants to own and control… everything. The universe. He may make it a better place, but nobody else’s will would be represented.”
This is where you lose me. His wanting to own everything doesn’t mean nobody else’s will would be represented. Being able to convince other people that your way is the better way doesnt ‘erase’ that other person’s will if they make the choice to follow your way by their own free will. That’s just how human social interaction works.
“It wouldn’t be a collaborative effort. He treats other people as puppets, even if he treats them nicely.”
I don’t think he treats them as puppets – he treats them as business partners. If a business partner had an idea that was BETTER than his, he might rewrite his powerpoint presentation to incorporate that idea. He’s obviously done this with respect to technology – incorporating technology from the Fracture and from the Alari into his vision – why would it be any different with ideas?
It’s like when people argue with me. I don’t automatically assume their arguments are inferior. Sometimes they make a good argument. Often they make really really really bad arguments but it’s still good, because it lets me add to my arguments in order to cut those bad arguments off in the beginning. Sometimes they make an argument that’s REALLY good but not QUITE convincing, but convincing enough that I’ll change a little of my stance to focus more on some other area where my argument isnt quite as weak. And sometimes I concede the point to them because they are right and I am wrong, or at least less right.
I still have a general idea of what my beliefs are though. I just incorporate their ideas into my own for future arguments.
His actions are to manipulate others, particularly with money. He’s deceptive and arrogant, which makes people distrust him. Almost every interaction with him is a power play, a move in the game. People feel like they could never let their guard down with someone like him around, because he’d pounce on any opportunity and exploit it. He’s powerful and dangerous, no matter how benevolent. Much like the average superhero, in that respect.
Most violence is ultimately caused by greed, or at least envy. People want what other people have, so they take it with force. Most people don’t commit violence just for the sake of it. They do it because they’re hurting, because their needs aren’t being met, and so they lash out. The average person can relate to anger. They have a harder time relating to smugness.
It doesn’t matter if other people are able to influence Deus and his decisions, if ultimately he’s the one making them, and no one else. He gets what he wants, regardless of what anyone else thinks or wants. Just because he considers their thoughts, feelings, or ideas doesn’t mean they have any actual power.
Usually I don’t raise this kind of points, but since I was born, live and work in another Sub-Saharan country I have to say this all approach of Deus is wrong and would never work like this.
Mozambique does have the weakest army of probably all countries around it, but to rollback and layover just because of superior firepower, yeah, no.
The remaining neighbors seeing that happen, with what is basically a colonist mindset of Galtyn, they would get into the fray also with a vengeance (few, literally very few things unify African countries, a foreign white dude coming with a strong army trying to conquer “for their own benefit” is one of those).
Probable scenario, prorated guerrilla warfare for ages.
…and Dave, with so, so many age old witchcraft spiritual white and dark religions still practiced in Africa, in a universe of Demons and whatnot, Galtyn would be severely under staffed in what infernals is concerned.
Assuming Deus has no telepathic powers to “help” his “arguments”…
Yeah… I can imagine. Kinda “rather be poor and free than well-off without freedom”, at all costs.
And Deus really is removing the democracy.
About the age old witchcraft spiritual white and dark religions still practiced in Africa: Deus’ demons are outerworldly (<- this should be a word!!) and real, in the physical sense. Can any of said religions come up with something real enough to deal with them? Lighter-skinned people's (<- hope that's appropriate as a classification I must use here) religions apparently can not. And there's the council …
“Kinda “rather be poor and free than well-off without freedom”, at all costs.”
Um….. no. It’s ‘would rather be poor and not free than well off and free.’
This assumption that the average person in Mozambique or Galytn was free before Deus improved things seems to ignore actual facts on the ground. They were NOT free. They were not remotely free. They lived short, terror-filled, poverty stricken, hunger-filled lives, often punctuated by an ignominious death, either from being forced into war against superior forces as a child soldier, starved to death, sold into servitude, or disappeared for having the wrong opinion. With Deus, none of that happens any more.
How. Is. This. Bad?
People seem very stuck on the idea that Deus HAS to be some nefarious villain because he’s a rich white businessman. Because of tropes. But EVERYTHING he’s actually done has consistently shown him to be doing the exact opposite of anything nefarious. Hell, he’s better than most ‘honest businessmen’ in the United States, let alone tinpot dictators and warlords who harass and subjugate the population in various areas of sub-saharan Africa.
“And Deus really is removing the democracy.”
Galytn had no democracy whatsoever. Not that democracy on its own is a particularly great thing. It’s just mob rule when you get right down to it. What Deus has put forth is, instead, the beginnings of a constitutional republic, with a figurehead monarchy in place. And he does it slowly, gradually, so the people can get used to the idea of having actual freedom that they can choose to have.
“About the age old witchcraft spiritual white and dark religions still practiced in Africa: Deus’ demons are outerworldly (<- this should be a word!!) and real, in the physical sense."
Demons are essentially aliens in the Grrlpower universe. And they exist, whether people on Earth like it or not. As we've seen from Dabbler and Decolette, and as Sydney explained to Tamatha, demons are not good or bad. They're individuals, just like humans are individuals. They can be good. They can be bad. They can be somewhere in between. Their race does not dictate their alignment. And if anything, saying that a person's race does make them good or evil seems….. really really racist in mentality, wouldnt you agree?
" Can any of said religions come up with something real enough to deal with them? "
There mere fact that aliens exist at all, let alone demons, would put most religions in a tizzy. It wouldn't change the fact that they exist, though. Religions will have to learn to deal with the fact that the universe exists, I suppose.
"And there's the council …"
The Council wants whatever will help the Council the most. A stable sub-saharan Africa with improved trade and a more educated and prosperous population, which is far more accepting of non-human elements, has MANY benefits for the Council.
“… religions … Lighter-skinned people’s (…) religions …”
Go on, say it! “Semitic” religions!
Semitic: 1797, denoting the language group that includes Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic, Assyrian, etc.; 1826 as “of or pertaining to Semites,” from Medieval Latin Semiticus (source of Spanish semitico, French semitique, German semitisch), from Semita (see Semite).
Semite: 1847, “a Jew, Arab, Assyrian, or Aramaean” (an apparently isolated use from 1797 refers to the Semitic language group), back-formation from Semitic or else from French Sémite (1845), from Modern Latin Semita, from Late Latin Sem “Shem,” one of the three sons of Noah (Genesis x.21-30), regarded as the ancestor of the Semites (in old Bible-based anthropology), from Hebrew Shem.
But of course all the above is racial twaddle, so don’t belive a word of it.
He owns the treasury and military. if they want to call their country a pokemon and throw red balls at each other it would probably just cause him to buy expensive popcorn and drink excellent wine while watching
Anyone else kinda wish we had a Deus in real life?
He seems to be doing a much better job than all the corrupt morons that keep getting voted in.
This is the problem with a benevolent dictator.
Identifying one is basically impossible.
But yes, I’d live under Deus (in more ways than one ;-) ) in a heartbeat.
Eh, the bigger problem with a benevolent dictator is not themselves, but the power structure they leave to the next generation: The problem is the benevolent dictator’s son.
i was thinking the same, unless Deus managed to find out the secret to immortality, his efforts will only last until his final breath. then it’s up for taking by the next figurative Stalin.
I’m sure he’s got somebody working on it, assuming that having been around half of forever isn’t part of his secret.
“The problem is the benevolent dictator’s son.” – Regret
The assumption being that the Dictator would, after disdaining all the classical excesses of historical monarchs, still insist on the inheritance of power by parentage alone. It’s true that the system is reliant on finding a suitable replacement leader, but that does not preclude designing a succession strategy to do just that.
What are the odds of someone being suitable to lead the country – shall we take the traditional ‘million to one’? Then in a medium-sized country with a few tens of millions population, there are a few dozen potential candidates, of whom maybe ten to twenty might be in a suitable age band at any given time.
Let’s say we revive a couple of historical precedents. First is the Roman concept of the ‘cursus honorum’, whereby someone must have served a term of public service at a given level before they may be considered for the next higher. This should serve to direct those with potential along a route by which they can be evaluated and down-selected as required. The eventual shortlist for overall rule should be of a manageable length, all of whom would have proven their ability.
At which point we bring in the concept on which the Celtic Tanistry was based: that the ruler’s heir should be chosen not by primogeniture but on the basis of ability, within a shortlist of candidates defined by set rules, while the ruler from whom they were to inherit was still alive. Let the shortlist be the set of candidates who have reached the top of the cursus honorum, who therefore have a long record at up to provincial government on which to be judged.
Incidentally, since this would give a ‘council’ of proven secondary candidates, they can serve as a check and balance on the powers of the Dictator and/or the designated heir.
the problem with any authocracy be that a dictatorship or a monarchy is always the same, when you find a good leader is great but when a bad leader gets into power things suck and getting rid of the bad leader is baically imposible because he has absolute power, it doesnt matter how you practice this eventually someone unfit to rule but very smart and cunning to gain power will find himself in the big chair and once that happens nothing can stop him
at least in a democracy when a bad leader gets into power he will be out after a couple of years and then the oportunity of a good leader taking over presents itself, check and balances is the name of the game the more distributed the power is the least likely that a bad king takes over and ruins everyone’s day
“in a democracy when a bad leader gets into power he will be out after a couple of years and then the oportunity of a good leader taking over presents itself” – carso150
Citation very much needed. That may be how the theory is presented, but the reality shows a surprising resilience of bad practice even if the face fronting it occasionally changes.
im not necesarily a trump hater, but he got into power, he did some things good and some very bad, eventually his term came to an end and he was kicked out of the big chair, he tried to mount a little coup because he didnt want out of the big chair, failed because the us is a democratic republic and everyone rejected his little stunt and got out of power
he could still try gain for presidency but he will have to do it under legal terms and for the next 3 years anothr guy will be in the big chair
of course then the problem comes with the party itself behind said leader, but power is soo distributed in a democracy that is not like they have absolute power, in a democracy or a republic like the US power is soo distributed that a single bad actor cant cause much damage, the system is much more resilient, not invulnerable, but resilent to damage
again compare this to a authocracy where any bad decision goes unoposed
You’re confusing the specific instance with the actual rule. The danger isn’t in the single charismatic leader, but more insidious: the throttling of options that most democratic systems entails, the tactical shift of Party positions, and the blind tribalism of voters.
Blind tribalism is fairly straightforward to see. It’s shown by every voter whose position is “I believe these things because I’m a [Party-ist*]” rather than “I’m a [Party-ist] because I believe these things”. If your reason for supporting a certain Party is nothing more than that your family have always done so, just do your democratic duty and stay well away from the ballot box!
Tactical shift takes a bit more observation to show up. The prime example from recent years is the way that the UK’s nationalist right-wing led its Conservative Party into serving their own positions without ever getting anywhere near having a single Member of Parliament elected. Given a good enough demagogue on the extremist side, the mainstream Party will shift its policies in an attempt to avoid leaking votes. That’s almost regardless of how much leakage they would actually risk, as the nature of the system and the electorate means that they can effectively take their share of the middle ground for granted.
Option throttling is another order of indirectness again. In the pluralitarian systems operated by many democracies, there is a very high barrier to entry for any new players on the scene. Until a Minor Party can be assured of significant support, they are more likely to do more harm than good by splitting votes away from the Major Party with which their supporters share most policies. There is therefore a strong incentive for factions to combine into ‘Parties’ that are in effect a coalition of almost disparate interests, with no guarantee to the voters that the particular faction they favour will actually have much influence should their Party come to power. But while they keep voting for the Party that contains their faction, the fact that they don’t actually support many of the policies doesn’t show up anywhere.
* For ‘Party-ist’ insert Republican, Democrat, Tory, Labour, etc. It’s not a phenomenon limited to any one alignment.
Benevolent dictators almost never work out. On the off chance that you get one you’ll need a stable society that they’ll be encouraged to leave in good shape to their descendants, and there’s always a point where dictators tend to get murdery – and there’s no guarantee the next dictator will turn out well.
Off the top of my head, there’s *maybe* the Tokugawa (stabilized Japan, saved it from ecological deforestation) and Balaguer. While the latter’s ecological efforts might have saved the Dominican Republic from getting as bad as Haiti, that’s leaving out some historical factors and that the efforts might not have worked out in the long run.
But I’m no expert.
Putin seems to be close to a ‘benevolent dictator’ in the real world. Russia today is much better off than it was under Yeltsin. I can remember how many westerners back then worried that a new dictator would overthrow the fledgling Russian democracy (Zhyrinovsky was a popular bet). Then Putin came, and he gave Russia the strong leadership it needed, and he kept the democratic structures intact. Sure, he’s been gaming the system for all it’s worth, but there are still regular elections, which is huge in a nation that until then had barely ANY experience with democracy at all. ( Perhaps in a hundred years Putin will be seen as the ‘Saviour of Russian Democracy’? ;)
There’s a world of difference between “regular elections” and “regular elections at which any meaningful alternatives may be presented”. And by all accounts, modern Russia is not running on the latter.
you can tell you have never looked into putin at all
no because the real world uses logical and Dave throws all logic and reason away when Deus is concerned because Deus is a mary sue
I can recommend the Logitech MX Keys. It’s deliciously low-profile, and wireless (via dongle or Bluetooth). Great board.
“Can I have a little tangent here?”
Of course you can have a many tangents as you want. I mean, you did write it right after the sentence that mentions your straight line tool.
Tip for PC gaming: Get a controller. Windows has native compatibility with XBOX controllers. You might need a Bluetooth dongle if your NIC doesn’t have it already.
It makes a MASSIVE difference. GoW plays like a dream with a controller.
Controllers never felt right to me. You mainly use 2 fingers for 90% of the input while both hands hold onto the same little object. I personally prefer keyboard/mouse where that’s spread over both hands (& wrist motion) which work independently – even for games people say should be played on controller.
Yeah a lot of it is personal taste. But a lot of games just feel so much better.
I prefer mechanical keyboards because I have long fingers and it just feels more natural if I can move them at least a couple millimeters with each key press… Feels less static. More room for error with a slightly different hand position and attack angle or something? Or just the feeling of hovering the input against a slight resistance vs pressing down on a solid surface. Something along those lines.
I need tactile switches though. I usually don’t punch keys all the way through, so linear ones don’t give me enough feedback.
After Mozambique,would Deus push for Quebec separatism?!?!?
ehhh. at this point, i’m pretty sure there’s a much bigger majority of that province’s population that really couldn’t care less about being a sovereign state anymore.
they still love bitching though.
And you can bet your ass that France would immediately step forward with “We want that BACK!”
gorblimey, you’d think so but quebec was assimilated precisely because france abandoned it lol.
well there’s more to it but that did happen to.
True, but. France found itself in the ignominious position of being unwelcomed by both England and the USA, so backed off. However, the residents in what is now Quebec had no place to go, so accepted British rule as long as they could keep their customs etc.
Personally I find it rather quaint, having a state within a state as it were, and a perpetual memorial of what could have been a happy ménage à trois in North America.
Deus is a dick, and not even a somewhat interesting one. Get rid of him.
He’s very interesting.
He’s a wonderful exploration of how a good person with power who isn’t willing to accept the status quo might act.
I wouldn’t call him good, he is just very aware of the consequences of being obviously evil. He uses ambiguity as a defensive tactic.
i’d say in DnD terms that he would fall under the category good while switching back and forth with chaotic and lawful.
sure he’s take roguish steps to ensure he gets power in order to achieve his ambitions hence the chaotic but then he’s made sure to follow proper procedures in order to ruffle the least amount of feathers around.
the reason i think he would be classified “good” is that so far, every single actions he’s taken is for the benefits of others. sure he’s taking in steady profit as well but how do you expect him to do what he needs to without the ressources needed to do so. after all, ” justice without power is useless”. and i don’t think he’s taken a single action so far that was taken for his singular benefit. to be fair though, we still don’t know much about his except for his personality quirks. he could have ulterior motives but so far, everyone in this comic has been ludicrously honest when it comes to personal interactions and Deus always showed care and made sure whoever he’s dealing with is made to benefit from interacting with him, albeit in a standoffish way.
hence, he’s “good”. that’s my piece.
we do know Deus plan and its even mentioned in this very page, deus wants to take over the world, the thing is that acting like an evil overlord taking territory by overwhelming military action, then oppressing the population and drainign their resources is fucking stupid, that kind of attitude could work in the medieval era but in the modern world acting like your stereotipical evil overlord would only get you declared by every nation in the world as the next hittler and having to fight against every super power at the same time and a modern military packs quite a punch
lets analyse what Deus is doing and give their actions a little spin shall we
deus went and took over a small african nation, why africa because in general africa is led o its own devices by the mayority of powerful nations in the world and the region is pretty unstable and fill with tin pot dictators, this means that deus can by all acounts take over an african nation without raising to many eyebrows
then he builds an industrial base, creates schools to grant the population an education, and makes sure to have enough food and water for everyone in the process creating a middle class, this is important because if deus wants to take over the world he needs a proper industral base and a educated population of profesionals and scientits to be able to build and develop new advanced weapons that can rival or even surpass those of nations like the united states, russia or china, train soldiers which for that he requires a healthy population so that this soldiers are strong and loyal, etc, simply speaking if he wants to create a powerful military that can take the super powers he needs a strong economy, a healthy population and a stable industrial base
by improving the living conditions of its inhabitants he makes sure that they remain loyal to him and him alone since he was the one that provided them with all those benefits and improved their lives, this way they will be willing to fight and die in his wars in the name of the one that gave them soo many freedoms
ultimately what he needs is resources and people, more people to work as soldiers, more resources to make weapons, a more educated population to have scientists and enginers that can develop and build said weapons, a stable economy that can support this advancements, etc
all of the things that deus is doing is in order to create an unstopable army so that he can take over the world, its just that again acting like the stereotipical super villain is stupid, while acting like a good guy has its benefits which is why he does it
he’s a Mary sue who’s actions brake all logical cause and effects
dex, dude. everyone in that comic is a goddamn mary sue lol.
no.
the other characters my be strong but they all have rules and limits. Deus can do what ever he wants and Dave with throw out some half hearted BS to make it okay
well he does have a lot of money, that is the most powerful and versatile power of them all lol.
the flash: i’m sorry, what’s your super power again?
bruce waybe: I’m rich.
enough said lol.
“Deus is a dick,”
How?
I don’t understand how giving impoverished starving people a stable economy, longer lifespans, lower infant mortality, advanced medical breakthroughs, education, skills so they can improve their lives and their children’s lives, freedom from being tortured, murdered, raped, enslaved, and starved, is in some way a ‘dick move.’
What is bad about this?
“and not even a somewhat interesting one.”
In what way is he NOT interesting? He turns all the villain tropes on their head and uses them in a way which is downright heroic instead. He takes a vice like ‘greed’ and turns it into a virtue that helps everyone. He goes out of his way to make sure that the only people who ever will not benefit will be the most corrupt and evil people possible, and even with them, they have a chance to benefit as well by just…. stopping with being corrupt and evil and accepting his offers, which are becoming more and more simple to prove based on consistent past performances.
“Get rid of him.”
Yeah, those people don’t need a first world nation full of education, technology, food, water, and hope. This is sarcasm btw. They totally need all that. :)
If he was doing any of this for purely humanitarian reasons instead of to steal real estate/manpower/whatever resources from them in order to further his own gains this would be an entirely different conversation. The fact is he’s using them and the second they’re no longer useful to him he’s going to pull up stakes and leave as all colonizers do once they’ve used up whatever resource they came for.
He’s not there for a humanitarian mission he’s there to create or increase his own power wealth status ECT.
Just because he made it look a little neater on the outside doesn’t mean that at the end of the day he’s not exploiting the country.
And what if he doesn’t just “pull up stakes and leave as all colonizers do once they’ve used up whatever resource they came for.” Does that change your opinion of him? How can you be certain what he’ll do in the future? How is your prediction consistent with how he’s been portrayed in the comic?
It feels like a lot of people tag characters with a preconceived idea, and ignore all evidence to the contrary.
“If he was doing any of this for purely humanitarian reasons instead of to steal real estate/manpower/whatever resources from them in order to further his own gains this would be an entirely different conversation.”
Why do humanitarian reasons have to be at the expense of profit reasons? He’s doing it for both humanitarian AND profit reasons. Deus’s whole philosophy is that greed can be a virtue, not just a vice. If he is doing something that is humanitarian in nature, but ALSO benefits him, how is that WORSE than if he does something humanitarian in nature that DOESNT benefit him? In both cases, it’s benefiting the other party as well. In fact, by benefiting him, it forces him to HAVE to benefit the other party, because it ties his success to Galytn’s success.
“He’s not there for a humanitarian mission he’s there to create or increase his own power wealth status ECT.”
…. so?
He’s there to increase his own wealth and status. He’s doing htis by increasing THEIR wealth and status as well. This is what is known as a win-win scenario. AKA, a smart business venture. Not to mention one that is BETTER Than just giving charity to someone else. IF it was just a blank check, he can leave at any time, and Galytn would be in trouble as a result. His contract requires him to maintain the infrastructure and ties his ability to profit based on the GDP of Galytn (and apparently now Mozambique). The better THEY do, the better HE does. This is good for both sides.
“The fact is he’s using them and the second they’re no longer useful to him he’s going to pull up stakes and leave as all colonizers do once they’ve used up whatever resource they came for.”
Actually this is exactly what he CANT do. He can’t just ‘pull up’ and use up their resources.
1) They had no resources before Deus came into the picture. All resources involved are BECAUSE of Deus.
2) His contract is tied to the GDP. Pulling up would only be possible once they are self-sufficient and, more importantly, WANT him to leave. Even then, he’d still get a portion of the GDP based on their self-sufficiency. A GDP which now EXISTS, and did not exist before he came into the picture.
“The fact is he’s using them”
How? He’s paying them. He’s giving them jobs. Clean water. Food. Safety from outside enemies that were trying to take their nation. Safety from a former tyrant who tortured, enslaved, and murdered them at a whim for his own pleasure. He’s giving them education, which is going to let them have skills that they can use for their own purposes. He’s reduced infant mortality, so their children will live to become adults. He’s increased their lifespan through medical innovations and social systems, which mean they will eventually have the ability to have leisure time – something people like you and I take for GRANTED.
“Just because he made it look a little neater on the outside doesn’t mean that at the end of the day he’s not exploiting the country.”
Exploitation implies that only one side is benefitting at the expense of the other. This is CLEARLY not the case here. In Galytn, both sides are benefitting HUGELY, and he’s already explained how he will do the same for Mozambique. That’s the point of a win-win scenario. Both sides can win. That’s how you have wealth CREATION instead of just wealth TRANSFER.
—
Deus is an extraordinary character because he’s so unusual for what he’s been doing. He does not seem to be doing things JUST for his own well-being. He is doing things for his own well being, yes, but not JUST for his own. Because there are much easier, quicker ways to gain wealth if he actually WANTED to exploit them. And he hasnt done it. He hasnt done any of it. He instead chooses the long, harder path.
Deus is choosing the light side, one of hard work and time and investment for a potential large windfall in the distant future, not the dark side, which is low risk, quick and easy reward.
Some people measure the world not by their own success, not by what they have, or even how happy they are, but by how much they’ve successfully denied others.
Time and time again I’ve seen people hurt others for no personal gain, other than the pleasure of another person’s pain. That is what I would call evil.
“Some people measure the world not by their own success, not by what they have, or even how happy they are, but by how much they’ve successfully denied others.”
I don’t think Deus does that, actually. That would imply that he believes in a win-lose scenario being the goal. Deus clearly has been shown to believe that the best goal is to have a win-win scenario instead for both sides. He measures his success by how many times he can produce win-win scenarios, which seems to be…. most of the time, actually. He does way too many things that are beneficial to others, and sometimes even outright altruistic (which seems odd considering his belief system about greed), for me to think that he measures his success on how much he’s successfully denied others.
He respects other people’s business acumen, even when the other people are acting in a somewhat underhanded fashion (ie, the businessman on Fracture Station)
He tries very hard to engender loyalty in his employees (Heavenly Sword and Cthillia)
He is very loyal to them in return, even when they get themselves in trouble. (Opal, Vekter)
He is always willing to try to talk first and only resorts to violence or threats if all peaceful avenues have ended for reasons having NOTHING To do with himself (Indinge, the Mozambique general, Sciona).
He does not automatically assume the other side is evil – he believes anyone can be negotiated with in a peaceful manner if they have not been shown to be absolute psychopaths (Tom and his demon army, the Alari refugees).
He is willing to be altruistic without an immediate payout – sometimes the payout is just curiosity (giving $500 million in stocks to the poorest americans in order to see how it helps them).
While he does not volunteer information, he does not actively lie either (discussions about Sciona, his dinner with Maxima)
And he actually does seem to care about people (he genuinely seems to care about Maxima and how it’s possible they might eventually be on different sides, and seems sad about that possibility but he’s hopeful that they might wind up seeing each others positions; he treasures a little girl’s ashtray that she gave him to thank him for saving them from Indinge, in defiance of his belief system about greed and how everything can be bought, he is willing to give Maxima the other part of the meteorite if she wanted it, he genuinely seems to like Sydney as a fellow genre-savvy person, he seems to genuinely like Vale as a ‘person,’ he gets concerned about when Lorlana treats one of his employees, the maitre’d, with disrespect)
“Time and time again I’ve seen people hurt others for no personal gain”
Yes that does seem like something evil. Fortunately Deus does not do that.
“other than the pleasure of another person’s pain”
That does also seem evil, which is why I was confused when people seem to think Vehemence should have a heel turn. He’s actually done things where he doe seem to take pleasure in causing others pain, even if it’s partially because he feeds off of it – there are far less malevolent ways for him to feed off of violence.
Fortunately, Deus does not seem to take pleasure in other people’s pain.
“That is what I would call evil.”
I agree with your assessment. Being someone who hurts others for no personal gain, other than the sadistic pleasure of seeing that person be in pain, is evil. Which is definitely not Deus. :)
I… don’t remember what it was in this thread that prompted that thought. Maybe I meant to post it elsewhere. Regardless, I wasn’t attempting to describe Deus, except perhaps by contrast. As I believe you said elsewhere, Deus is the epitome of the idea “a rising tide lifts all boats”.
Probably my fault. My posts are often insanely long and it makes it hard to follow a thread. Sorry.
He doesn’t want to conquer the world he just wants to rule it
“World domination is such an ugly phrase. I prefer to call it world optimization.”
i’m pretty sure Deus probably has regular Censuses in the population to see what’s more needed to make galytn better.
“I have several very good scripts I just want to run on all the world’s spreadsheets.”
And I see all the White Man’s Burden fanbois are winning the Synchronized Imperial Spooging competition
i’m sorry… what?
This person is referencing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Man's_Burden
The long and short of it is there is a long history of white colonists seeing themselves as taming wild savages for their own good, and it’s largely based in racism. In the comments for the last couple comics, we’ve seen a LOT of people parroting viewpoints that sound reminiscent of the late-1800’s to early-1900’s.
Now I don’t know what Dave is going to do here, but hope we see a shift in response from the super team since Deus is a villain. He does seem to be pulling heavily from Dr. Doom, but a key difference there is Dr. Doom himself is from Latveria. When you change it to a white billionaire going into an African country, there are massive shifts in subtext.
“seeing themselves as taming wild savages for their own good”
Deus clearly does not see them as savages. They are at all levels of their own government – the only thing Deus is actually running is the infrastructure, which his company built. He’s even been letting them have a part in maintaining and upgrading that infrastructure. He sees them as normal people who are worthy of having a good future for themselves and their children, who should not be punished for happening to be born in a region that was dominated by warlords, poverty, famine, and strife. He wants them to be able to produce a stable middle class, which is the opposite of them thinking they are ‘savages to be tamed.’
“and it’s largely based in racism.”
It’s racist to think that people in sub-saharan Africa should not be allowed to recieve any economic prosperity. Deus is not even giving charity. This is a business arrangement in which both sides benefit. And it has nothing to do with race – it has to do with them being in an impoverished area which was not too expensive for him to finance the infrastructure for an entire nation, as long as he’s willing to put the decades into it that are necessary to show substantial gains.
“but hope we see a shift in response from the super team”
HEY DEUS! YOU STOP THAT RIGHT NOW! YOU STOP TURNING GALYTN AND THE SURROUNDING AREAS INTO A FIRST WORLD NATION FILLED WITH PROSPERITY, HOPE, AND FREEDOM FROM MURDEROUS TORTURING RAPING TYRANTS RIGHT THIS INSTANT! BAD DEUS! BAD!
(clearly I’m being humorously sarcastic btw) :)
“since Deus is a villain.”
How? How is he in any way a villain? How does stating ‘he is a villain’ show that he is a villain? Based on every single action that he’s ever done until this point, he has been the polar opposite of a villain, save for that he loves villainous TROPES which are very surface level and for show, not for practice.
“He does seem to be pulling heavily from Dr. Doom,”
He is not even remotely pulling from Dr. Doom. He is not a tyrant – he is a business partner. He is pulling from David Xanatos, if anything.
“When you change it to a white billionaire going into an African country, there are massive shifts in subtext.”
If he was black would you have a different opinion? In the movie ‘Black Panther’ at the end, T’Challa decides to start finally using his nation’s immense wealth and technology to help outside of Wakanda. Is that any different, other than that Deus is a LOT more effective and does not rely on magical unobtainium to do it? The intent is still to help, even if Deus is also doing it in order to make a profit – his profit is DEPENDENT on the regions he is in also benefitting. If they do not benefit, he does not benefit. There is a complete incentive for him to be a good person here, and he has been.
Honestly the more I read about people having a problem with this almost entirely because it’s in Africa, the more I think that the problem some people have is that it’s benefitting Africans. If Deus had done the same thing for a poor majority-white nation in Eastern Europe, would your opinion have changed? If Deus was black instead of white, would your opinion have changed? I -honestly- (this is not a bit btw like my over-the-top praise of Deus sometimes is) do not understand why people think Deus is a villain based on the actions he’s taken to help Galytn AND now Mozambique.
Taken individually, each step he’s done has been a net good for the region, AND for the world.
The people want him to do what he’s doing.
He’s not harming others in the process, except for the occasional corrupt leader (who he still tries to first reason with and give them an economic incentive to do the RIGHT thing instead of the evil corrupt thing).
He minimizes any sort of casualties whenever possible.
He is focused almost entirely on increasing the standard of living for everyone, because he’s tying his business contracts to people having a better standard of living. If they don’t succeed, he doesn’t succeed.
He has shown genuine care for the formerly downtrodden people he’s saved, and treasures even something like an ash tray made by a little girl who wanted to thank him for making sure that her life will not be one of horror, terror, poverty, famine, and probably death.
He is EXTREMELY loyal to those who follow him and are employed by him. He does not just command – he delegates. He does not dictate – he employs. He does not dominate – he makes business agreements which both sides benefit from.
His actions will even benefit the ‘BIG’ nations while also benefitting the small ones, who go along with his business plans (Operation Cha-Ching). Heck, ARCHON itself benefits from Deus’s company as well.
Taken collectively…. his actions are even BETTER somehow. He’s showing an ability to have disparate cultures living in harmony with one another.
So … seriously… how is he a villain? Moreover, how in ANY way is he even remotely racist in even the slightest way? If it’s just because he’s white, then that’s the actual racist thing I’m seeing. His skin color should be completely irrelevant, because it has not been any part of his thought process.
A lot of people can’t process complex ideas. “Racist”, for many people, means “There is a racial component to something that makes me uncomfortable”.
If Deus were black, people would read his story as one of racial success, of beating the odds, of succeeding despite the world, and saving his own people. It would be fantastical, and it would be wish fulfillment, but it would be satisfying.
That he’s white makes people uncomfortable, because they’re faced with the fact that the wealthy are disproportionately white, and nobody wants to really examine the reasons why. They all believe they know, and take it on faith, and don’t want anyone actually measuring, studying, or looking for the truth. Some people believe the reasons are inherent or genetic, while others believe the reasons are historical or social.
“A lot of people can’t process complex ideas. “Racist”, for many people, means “There is a racial component to something that makes me uncomfortable”.”
I agree. A lot of people try to minimize words and throw around words as insults even when they don’t actually fit the scenario involved.
“If Deus were black, people would read his story as one of racial success, of beating the odds, of succeeding despite the world, and saving his own people.”
Yes. I’m pretty sure that a large amount of people liked the Black Panther movie for that reason (the racial component), rather than because Black Panther is a genuinely honorable hero who is rather courageous in his own right.
“That he’s white makes people uncomfortable”
Yes,it’s unfortunate that people can’t seem to separate a person’s success from a person’s skin color or other outwardly features that tend to have very little, if anything, to do with their actual success. Especially in the case of Deus, where it’s basically Word of God that Deus IS a self-made multi-billionaire, completely based on his own intelligence, ambition, and drive, rather than because of having any sort of leg up in his family upbringing, or his race or ethnic background.
“because they’re faced with the fact that the wealthy are disproportionately white,”
Funny thing is while doing some research on this, I discovered that the majority of billionaires on the planet are not white – they’re asian (the plurality of which are in China, surprisingly). Whites make up the second largest racial group of billionaires, followed by Indian (from the Indian subcontinent, not native american). So… the wealthy are not actually disproportionally white, although white-majority nations do tend to be more technically and economically advanced and have an overall higher median income among those populations as a result.
“and nobody wants to really examine the reasons why”
It tends to be because of technological advancement of the nations they live in, combined ith the demographics in those nations. Before 20 years ago, it also tended to involve capitalism being a driving force in those nations (that part changed significantly after Hong Kong reverted back to China).
“They all believe they know, and take it on faith, and don’t want anyone actually measuring, studying, or looking for the truth.”
I agree. There’s definitely a sunken cost fallacy (our tendency to follow through on an endeavor if we have already invested time, effort, or money into it, whether or not the current costs outweigh the benefits) involved in people wanting to double down on a sometimes easily proven incorrect view of things.
Some people seem to WANT Deus to be the villain, despite his not actually being villainous, and in fact often being the exact opposite, and it just does not sit well with them because he’s a rich white male capitalist, which tends to lend itself pretty easily to a villain trope (the Ultrahumanite, Dr. Silvana, Lex Luthor, pre-heel-turn David Xanatos). But there ARE examples of the opposite that they tend to ignore (Bruce Wayne, post-heel-turn David Xanatos, Tony Stark)
The key word is “disproportionate”, by which I meant “in proportion to their population”. Yes, the majority of the wealthiest people in the world are asian — but the majority of the world’s population is also asian. Whites are disproportionately wealthy, as in there are more wealthy white people than would be expected were wealthy people distributed amongst the various ethic groups in the world in proportion to their population. There are numerous historical factors for this, but little reason to believe inherent racial differences are predominantly responsible.
“White” is also a particularly vague category that shifts around as needed for the purposes of the person using it. Different population groups get included or excluded depending on the motives of the person making the categorization.
“The key word is “disproportionate”, by which I meant “in proportion to their population””
That’s actually a fairly reasonable argument, except I tend to not base it entirely on population, but rather on production of goods. If you have a million people who do not produce much on one side for trade, and a thousand people who produce a lot on the other side for trade, I would not be surprised that the thousand people would have a much higher percentage of successful people, because of the Pareto Distribution principle. It depends on WHERE the productive percentage of a population are located, because that’s going to be important to the pareto distribution.
The Pareto Principle, named after economist Vilfredo Pareto, specifies that 80% of consequences come from 20% of the causes, asserting an unequal relationship between inputs and outputs. This principle serves as a general reminder that the relationship between inputs and outputs is not balanced.
So it’s not JUST based on population – it’s based on the percentage of that population that’s doing something to cause the consequences. It also explains why China went from having very few billionaires to having a LOT more billionaires than all majority-white nations combined after getting Hong Kong back. That’s where a lot of the people who were doing most of the innovative work were located – because that’s where the capitalists were located.
The main problem tends to be knowing where the productive percentage of the population is located. China’s most productive percentage was located in Hong Kong, which had not been subjected to communism and collectivism, so were far more productive. Which resulted in a lot more billionaires because China was smart enough to realize this and not break a working machine right away.
Also China is largely a mono-ethnicity nation (and even where it’s not in business, Chinese partners are required to be majority investors in order to do business in China). So that alters gives them an advantage in the pareto distribution as well when comparing to more diverse populations in other nations.
I think the point of both Deus and Tom within the story is that being a hero or a villain has more to do with method and control than it does with outcomes.
The heroes may cause more damage, may hurt more people, may not really help anyone, and yet they’re still considered the heroes. The heroes protect the status quo. They protect those who already own things and are succeeding in society.
The villains are those that upset the established order, even if their intent is to create a better one. They defy the “natural” order that sorts people into winners and losers, through disruption, by changing the game. They impose their way on society, call the winners wrong, and try to elevate the losers.
Heroes and villains can both believe they’re correcting a wrong, taking ill-gotten gains from the unworthy, and redistributing them to the deserving. It’s a matter of who they’re defining as the bad actors. Heroes are aligned with the common man, the majority, and fight against a few bad actors. Villains call the majority complicit in an even greater evil.
So here’s Deus, fighting for himself, as well as the common man, fighting the world powers which claim to represent the common man. He represents a very different philosophy, which rankles a lot of people. Whether they’d be better off under his leadership is irrelevant to their moral judgement of him.
Ummmm
1) I’m not white. I’m not a ‘White Man’s Burden fanboi (fangirl). I’m a ‘It’s cool for men, women, and children to not starve to death in a third world hellhole ruled by murderous torturing warlords and have an actual future of hope that people in my country take for granted’ fangirl.
2) Deus is not doing a ‘white man’s burden’ thing. His skin color is COMPLETELY irrelevant to what he’s doing. If he was black or asian or polynesian or native american or any other race, he would be doing the same exact thing, and it would be just as noble a pursuit. The fact that it ALSO benefits him does not erase the good things that he’s doing. He is not seeing the people as his colonial possessions. He is giving them the tools to be able to rule themselves, and he just happens to be benefiting economically from it by his company making money when these regions are also successful for themselves, since he’s running the infrastructure. Which he built – he didnt seize any infrastructure, since no infrastructure EXISTED before he was there. It has absolutely nothing to do with race.
Deus did not decide on this region because it was full of black people. He decided on the region because of strategic concerns, because it would not get pushback from richer areas, because the people IN those areas wanted the help, because it’s inexepensive to improve the area and has a big payout if you look at it in decades instead of quarters. And because the people who WERE in charge were genuinely evil and awful people who were torturing the masses, on top of being genuinely incompetent, like Indinge or the leadership in Mozambique. They werent just incompetent. They were incompetent AND evil. That’s quite a combo.
He would not have had the same success in Europe or even in Southeast Asia. Even though there’s a lot of poverty in Southeast Asia as well, and a lot of people similarly subjugated by tyrannical regimes, there would be too much pushback by the neighbors there, not to mention by the G-8 countries. Galytn, Zaire, Mozambique, etc? No one wanted to invest in those areas – there was no military advantage. There was no economic advantage (at least in the short term). And because of the state of dictatorship, the humanitarian needs were never fulfilled until Deus was able to improve things by introducing a profit motive.
I actually wonder what Deus could do with Greece. It’s been suffering from corruption and a repeatedly failed economy for decades now. However, its neighbors are more likely these days (thanks to the EU) to go “We’re all Europeans, how dare, grrrrrr!!” than a location like Galytn. Especially since Greece is a member of the European Union. Galytn is…a forgotten-by-others chunk of its-own-government-neglects-it land. So an administrative & economic subversion of Galytn would work far, far better and easier than Greece…so I’ll never get to see it happen.
“I actually wonder what Deus could do with Greece.”
I agree with everything you said.
As you mention, the problem with Greece, and the reason he likely did not do this with Greece, is because there’s a lot of additional problems with the EU and the proximity to G-8 nations, like Germany and France. But if that was not an issue, Deus would likely definitely be able to return Greece to economic and technological health.
Also Greece would be a LOT more expensive to fix. Even though Deus was, on his own, the 98th biggest economy in the world, it would take more than a few billion dollars to fix Greece’s economy and infrastructure. Galytn, as Deus said, ‘is a small country.’ So it was easier to foot the bill.
You do realize that the reason the rest of the world doesn’t want to invest in those areas, and wouldn’t care if someone came along and conquered or otherwise meddled in those areas, is because they’re full of black people. Deus, to his credit, sees this as an obvious opportunity that other people are ignoring for silly reasons like racism.
“You do realize that the reason the rest of the world doesn’t want to invest in those areas, and wouldn’t care if someone came along and conquered or otherwise meddled in those areas, is because they’re full of black people.”
I’m sure there are some who have that as a reason, but I sincerely doubt that’s the main reason. I think the main reason tends to be the social and civil unrest in those regions. The more unstable an area is, the less likely people will want to go in to invest. it’s not because ‘it’s full of black people’ but rather ‘it’s full of warring societies and tinpot dictators who are very likely to just seize our infrastructure and our profits and we will get nothing for all our investment.’
But yes, I’m sure there are SOME people who think ‘ugh, black people’ and avoid investment for that reason. These are called ‘stupid people.’
“Deus, to his credit, sees this as an obvious opportunity that other people are ignoring for silly reasons like racism.”
Correct, because Deus is not a stupid person by any stretch of the imagination.
Plus he’s not dissuaded by the far more likely reason that most investors shy away from sub-saharan Africa – the wartorn nature of the region and tin-pot dictatorship prevalence, which makes investments very risky. Because he has, as he mentioned to Indinge, a…. robust security force to take care of that if need be. :)
No, it’s not that they think ‘ugh, black people’, it’s more that anyone who isn’t black is viewed as people are viewing SmugD: some rich white prick who thinks they can ‘help’ the poor black savages, or that whole ‘white mans burden’ crap
And many people blame that social and civil unrest on racial, rather than historical, factors.
You don’t get excited from an excel update? What kind of deviant are you….
Someone who can’t help wondering what useful functionality they’ve thrown out in favour of useless trivialities this time?
Be the Ultmate Reactionary: Windows 7×64 running Lotus SmartSuite and Paint Shop Pro 6.02 as my primary production tools, with a Foxit Reader which has a menu bar option!
As a person who learned to type on an IBM Selectric typewriter, I’ve got a Corsiar mechanical keyboard that I replaced all the Cherry brown switches with Cherry blue switches.
I like tactile typing and my fingers get less tired.
give me control of a nation’s money supply and I care not who makes its laws.
-Amschel Rothschilds the head of the Rothschild banking cartel.
aaahhhh the Seven Days of Fire demons from Vally or Wariors of the Wind ……. unfortunatly they lost to the toxic jungle …….
Given how awful most government are, I really can’t be too mad at him yet. He’s still coming across as more of a good guy than bad at this point.
how can a character this baddy written exist in an otherwise well written story?
gods this page is so painful to read, not even characters in a horror movie would be stupid enough to see it that way. now all the other characters have to play stupid as his basic mob protection racket BS plan can work.
Deus is such an objectivist Mary sue wet dream
What happened to Dabbler’s look in the last panel from the previous comic? That look totally said ” Max bumped uglies with Dues,” was sensed. I want exposition on that! And all the discomfortable social comedy that it generates! How does gold skin blush? Would it look green like ROY G BIV or would look purple like her hair?
OMFG THAT A$$HOLE!!! You NEVER throw down the weights like that!!
Yes I have several beefs with Deus, but I took weightlifting twice as a P.E. elective in high school, I’ve hung out in gyms off & on (more off lately, alas, panini) AND THAT IS UNFORGIVABLE!!
How is it still not clear if Deus is a super or not?
DaveB is *such* a tease!
For those who think Deus is the good guy here and should be welcomed for improving lives.
that is not how a society would react to a foreign power flexing its military might and giving a “we will uplift you, improve your lives in every way, and all you have to do is follow our laws, rules, which yes will involve changing your ways of life and aspects of your culture over night rather than a gradual change. and you will praise us as your saviors”
this is how this always comes across, especially when one nation has an overwhelming military advantage; the evil invading foreign empire come to exploit the people and land; an olive branch in one hand and a gun in the same god damned hand should you not take the olive branch.
the problem is a lot of people here are inside the overpowering side of the equation and only see the benefits but not the *foreign invaders have come*…no you will not be seen as liberators, because no one ever sees a foreign power as liberators; especially when they stick around and start to impose their own laws, and flex their military muscle to get what they want, ect…
I can guarantee if tomorrow a powerful alien force came to Earth; the USA, China, Britain, ect… especially, and declared all these benefits that would help the people, advanced tech and unlimited resources for health care, dentistry, free energy, clean air and water, enhanced life spans, changing the economic system to award any social benefit including online participation, ect..
and at the same time showed up with an armada of ships, started to put in the improvement immediately, said they will be in charge (but as a new higher level of government, like a super federal, only with more reach, and you can keep all your laws and traditions so long as they don’t break any of their laws) and to try and prevent any resistance gave a show of force *like titan mechs walking through nuke strikes like a gentle mist, or using a particle beam that denatures fossil fuel so no vehicles and machines that need it can run, instant oxidation weapons, sleep inducer beams, ect…even with these non lethal, “peaceful” shows of force to indicate they want to preserve lives of those they now consider part of their empire.
can you honestly declare that even a quarter of a developed nation’s population would welcome them? Or said governments hand over power willingly?
think about it, think about what the local PR would be, how your local news casters, politicians realizing they would lose their lobbyist money, corporations, and then think how these people influence others.
doesn’t matter if there is a benefit, the foreign invader will never be welcomed as a liberator *not within the same generation they first occupied at least*.
(The pride of man is doing things by his own hand)
-conversely,
*make a man believe that the hand holding him down is his own and is pulling up not pushing and he will gladly continue to welcome being shoved into the dirt.
There’s plenty of evidence that at least a large portion would do that very thing-welcome the invaders, including within our governments. After all, they’ve already made a habit of emulating and inviting hostile human nations to undermine their political process, economies, and so on…and gotten elected for doing it. Whether it’s Britain and the EU, or USA and China, plenty of our ruling class are extremely EAGER to do just exactly what you think is impossible or improbable.
That’s because they expect to be in control of the international institutions they’re building. Of course they’re willing to sacrifice political processes that just get in their way.
People want global rules when they think those rules will be their own, and local rules when they think they can’t dominate.
Because people want to maintain the illusion of control. The actual level of control doesn’t matter, as long as they have the illusion. So yes, people would resist the scenario you describe, no matter how benevolent they believed it to be, because they’d lose the illusion of agency.
That’s not equivalent to what Deus has done here. In Galytn, as far as anyone but the prince knows, he’s just some economic advisor who was hired to turn their economy around. He’s not writing laws or changing their culture. He’s just investing in their economy, building infrastructure and providing jobs. And, having demonstrated what he can do, people in nearby countries want a piece of it. They don’t know what happens behind the scenes, don’t know how many people he’s had killed, or how much he’s involved in the political process. I imagine he does effectively write the laws, by making suggestions and leaning on the right people. But he lets other people pretend that they’re in charge, and that’s what matters.
You are right I am comparing a perennial *Empire with resources with long term goal to integrate local populations as part of their empire* to an annual *monetary personal gain using behind the curtains tactics so others maintain the illusion of control, all the financial gain and personal power, zero political responsibility*”
in fact something not really seeing in the comments this time but has been brought up on past pages is that what Deus is doing has degenerated to a point where it cannot be sustained beyond his presence. Somehwere on this page’s comments I saw Pander say something about setting up administrations that will last beyond his presence without his need to micromanage…except…he hasn’t…not anymore.
At first with company loyalty, local governments indebted to his company’s aid, and even treated well supers; yeah that was feasable.
however in his desire to be an overwhelming presence he has now invited two conflicting elements into his plans.
Alari refugees, yeah he has manipulated the small number of noble families on this escape ship…but what if other remnants of their empire show up? They have been spelled out expansionists and full of themselves. What if the mecha-kaiju didn’t target anything beyond the Alari home world, either as a warning shot from something they ticked off; or something that just wanted that planet specifically and were scraping the ants off of it.
and then he has now brough Infernal demons into the mix. Demons not devils no magic controlling them to a contract; and on top of that demons who want the Earth entire (I don’t care ONE, who is high ranking but not the absolute ruler of the demon realm rolled back on saying that after realizing he walked into a one sided fight against him at that moment*,
so how well will the Alari and demons play together in the long run when the Alari government makes contact with their ship? What when the demon high command shows up and “we’ve changed the deal” on Deus.
what when other powers show up that could use these two “less advanced” powers fighting over the Earth as an excuse to intervene and “peacefully” set up bases on Earth for its “own protection”.
Deus has set himself up to lose, or at least these countries to lose once either he over reaches or he is no longer around to spread his charisma to retain control.
He looks to be being set up to be that villain/character who in the end is like, “I just wanted what was best, my plans, every calculation was so precise, how, how did it fall apart? Where did I mis calculate?” when any outsider can point out this conflicting elements he invited in.
I would not be at all surprised if Deus had taken all that into account, and managed to play off the Alari and Demon leadership against each other. I mean, if WE can think of these possibilities, chances are, he’s already long past that stage in his planning. Remember, he ‘has an annoying knack for knowing stuff he shouldn’t’.
On that note he could be banking on a bigger power coming in and playing the poor Earthican who was too trusting of the Alari and Demons type of card to then keep his gains and work for/within as a middle man the humans will trust on behalf of the new alien administration.
and nOW we know it for sure, Deus is EVIL. He likes to ADMINISTRATE!!